JCT: Just as the media have lionized the saboteur Professeur
Alan Young as he lost case after case for our side, so too,
Cannabis Culture Vulture Marc the Narc Emery is being sheep-
dipped by the mighty media in the US.

We all remember how his last sheep-dipping fell apart with
our Hemp Hero sitting in a Saskatchewan jail for trafficking
(passing) a joint at a marijuana rally with his supporters
putting up a shrine their martyr! Then word gets out that he
had pleaded guilty and he lied saying it was a mistake, that
he had wanted to fight. We got and published the transcript.

Then word got out that when the two cops came by and asked
the crowd "who's been smoking marijuana?" out from the crowd
jumps Cannabis Captain Courageous to face them down. And
confess. Har har har har. It was a set-up, as stale as the
sheep-dipping we watch in every undercover cop show.

And then he lets his lawyer plead him guilty and is
sentenced to jail time. Then tries to blame the lawyer for
not realizing that he wanted to put up a defence before
anyone noticed that he had evidently not instructed her to
prepare a defence because she went unprepared to fight and
he had not inquired.

What a disaster in sheep-dipping for the narcs. Not one
they're going be putting on TV soon. Har har har har. Our
hemp hero sitting in jail when his cover
falls all apart and he's exposed as a narc mole getting his
sheep-dipping at the highest levels. Har har har har. This
is about as close to Maxwell Smart kind of operation you can
imagine. What a great story especially with Maxwell Marc
spending a couple of months in jail. And while the law was
dead because he doesn't agree with Turmel!

Any bets he'll be helping make the "law is still alive"
argument by his being prosecuted? But who cares what the
P.R. does, it's what is done in the official courts and
legislatures that will eventually count. Remember the 4000
stays happened at the top. We're back.

Of course, the bigger they build up my past opponents,
especially the ones who have committed strategic blunders
from which there is no recovery (tactical error is using the
wrong golf club, strategic is aiming at the wrong hole), the
harder must be their eventual fall. I love it. And now he's
being sheep-dipped by the best, the guys who have managed to
report with a straight face that those steel New York
skyscrapers were melted by a airplane gasoline fire to a
world of engineers. I wonder if they'll mention how he pled
guilty to trafficking the joint after giving himself up! Any
bets?

>CBS News' 60 Minutes to air Prince of Pot Story This
Sunday, March 5
>by Marc Emery
>Date: 29 Feb, 2006

CBS's most awarded journalist Bob Simon investigates the
story of Marc Emery, The Prince of Pot.
Tick, tick, tick, tick...
On Sunday, March 5th at 7.00 p.m. in all time zones across
North America, CBS News flagship program 60 Minutes will air
the story of Marc Emery, Canada's Prince of Pot.
The segment will examine Emery's lifelong battle against
prohibition and his unique strategy to accomplish that aim -
by selling marijuana seeds around the world.

JCT: - by confessing, pleading guilty and doing time. The
leadership of the Cannabis Culture.

The episode will be seen by approximately twelve to fourteen
million viewers across Canada and the United States.
Prestigious CBS journalist Bob Simon interviewed Marc Emery
and others, including the Drug Enforcement Administration
and Canadian police, to delve into Emery's current
predicament of facing extradition to the USA for a prison
term of possibly 30 years or more.
If you've been following the progress of this 60 Minutes
feature in the CC forums, you'll be familiar with the
following links. If not, please take a look and see what's
been in development for six months!
A "60 Minutes" update for those interested
60 Minutes is in town...

JCT: One question I wish they'd ask him: This was your
chance to fight the prohibition all the way to the Supreme
Court. Why did you plead guilty? Why had you confessed?
Where is the gain in following your example?
Har har har har har.
I love to tell people the truth about Marc the Narc's
Kamikaze Kannabis Kulture because it's so easily checked out
with any search for Emery and Turmel.
I urge all to tape the segment on Canada's most notorious
narc mole and watch him help the government's case for the
existence of the prohibition.
I hope to have time to parse the whole show. If someone
would care to transcribe it and send it to me saved in txt
format, I'd guarantee it Turmel's Torturous Treatment, word
for word. Otherwise, I may be too busy. But this sheep-
dipping should be worth it.



--
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 can imagine how embarrassing it must be for Bill Ryan
to have to keep backing down from my bets to put his money
where is mouth is all these years and so his only recourse
was to resort to vandalism.

If you Google Groups, you'll notice that all my latest posts
have been retitled "John Turmel drinks his own piss."
Today's post "Difference between money and assets" no longer
shows up in a search and has been covered over by Ryan's
internet graffiti.

One has to wonder how vandalizing my posts helps Ryan prove
his point that there is something wrong in it. I'd think
that the vandalism would serve as proof of his frustration
at never being able to win a valid point. His "explosive
feedback is sometimes useful" hasn't panned out since it's
never useful in the situation being discussed; so rather
than just backing down and shutting up like in the past, he
now works out the frustration at failure in vandalism.

So who wants to participate in a civil discussion with Bill?
Now, if you went to are regular discussion and found out
that one debater, after losing, goes outside and vandalizes
the winner's car, would you all just keep treating him
normally, keep discussing as if he's just some ordinary
debater? Probably not. Probably the vandalism would occasion
some kind of reaction.

So I would ask that no one respond to Bill Ryan until he
ceases his outside vandalism and gets back to trying to
debate inside.

Unless, of course, you approve of what he is doing in which
case this is your chance to let everyone know just by
engaging in discourse with the vandal, being associated with
the vandal.

Of course, the complaint to Google has had no result.

So please, let us all shun people who resort to vandalism
when they lose the debate. Now, I'm not suggesting censoring
or banning Ryan for his juvenile delinquency, I'm suggesting
shunning him. And if that doesn't suffice, then he'll know
that he may take credit for slowing down the engineering of
UNILETS more than most.



--
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: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 23:38:05 -0500
>From: tom@... (Tom Kennedy)
>Subject: John please help me with a response to this issue
raised by David ...
>To: turmel@... (John 'The Engineer' Turmel)

Greetings John: I've been re-educating David about 'usury'
existence and 'usuryfree' living. Would you please help me
with a response to this issue that he raises about The
$100.000 asset (house)? Thanks John. Just email it back to
me. Tom
PS: My daughter Sarah (24 years old) had a serious seizure
on Thursday, February 23rd. She is in the Jewish General
Hospital in Montreal with significant speech impairment. Say
a prayer for her recovery.

JCT: I'll take a minute with mom to form a church and ask
the gaia to allay our concerns and strike her with a bolt
healing grace from all those in Heaven who love us and can
contribute to its power.

-----Original Message-----
From: David
Sent: February 26, 2006 4:00 PM
To: Tom Kennedy
Subject: Re: Confirming my definition of a usuryfree society

JCT: Before going into the realm of financial insanity where
everyone understands what "living beyond our means" means
even though it's physically impossible to live beyond our
physical means if we're doing it, remember that to eliminate
the hypnotic conditioning caused by thinking in terms of
Mammon, money, I'll paraphrase in terms of casino poker
chips and I'd bet the financial delusions will glaringly
stick right out.

D: Thanks for the swift and comprehensive reply, Tom. There
is something I don't understand about your usury-free
concept. If I live in a house that you own, I imagine that
you feel it is appropriate that I should pay you rent for
the use of your asset.

JCT: What if everyone already have one or two homes? So
David implicit presumption is a shortage of housing so he
has to rent. And a shortage of credit so he can't buy.

D: Or should you provide the house to me rent free?

JCT: Tom, say it's not your home, say it is my home that I
have pledged at the cage for the chips I took out before
leaving on my trip. If you want to let someone live in my
home while I'm gone, what is the only fair thing you have to
ask the user to do to ensure me no loss of the collateral
backing up the chips out of your cage?

D: If you sell your house for, say, $100,000, and instead
let me use the money rather than the house, i.e., lend me
$100,000, now you would say that I shouldn't pay any
interest on the money, I should get it "rent free" -- is
that right?

JCT: David presumes a controlled source of credit money
supply, right, and that he can't have any to buy? "You who
are hungry and have no money, come, buy and eat. You who
have no clothes, come, buy and be warm. You who are
homeless, come, rent?.....
Isaiah 55 says credit is the righteous response to need, not
charity, but David can't get out of the box of presupposing
he has no credit at the bank. David's saying: presume money
is still kept in short supply and I can't get it anywhere
else.

Even I have admitted that I would not interfere if someone
wants to lend their chips at interest to any idiot who would
borrow it at interest when there's a casino cashier's cage
right over there where you'll take his marker for chips
interest-free or an on-line interest-free UNILETS banking
account on his home computer. When I said that I would not
interfere, I would chastise the usurer for taking advantage
of the moron who could have used his own interest-free
credit line at the UNILETS ATM but got conned into paying
another person interest for nothing. And I'd have chastised
the moron for letting himself be raked for a loan he could
have gotten for a mere service right around the corner. But
if the moron insisted on paying, like Bible Bill Aberhart
told those who would not vote for Sociable Credits, "you
have the God-given right to suffer."

So, Mammon caused It's David's inability to imagine having
access to interest-free credit that prevents him from
grasping something he has been conditioned to believe is
impossible to do. We don't think about solutions that are
impossible, do we? We dismiss things thus considered in a
peremptory way. As long as they believe it's impossible,
they can't be convinced. A man convinced against is will is
a man unconvinced still. Just as they don't give serious
thinking on flapping their arms to fly to work, they can't
give serious thinking on an interest-free source of funding
which they can't imagine anyone else would do since they
want their interest and wouldn't do it either. Because they
would never lend interest-free, no one else would either.
Confusing creators of money with earners of money. It's the
inability to step out of the bankers' box, to always presume
that there can be no other source for the loan, that causes
the financial delusion binding them to their debt slavery.

D: If so, what is the difference?

JCT: There is an infinite source of poker chips, print them
as we need them, but not an infinite source of houses. Quite
a difference to a rural Third-worlder but quite
indistinguishable to all but a few urban First-worlders, it
seems.

D: Why should a $100,000 asset like a house or car be
charged for the use of, but not the equivalent amount of
money itself?

JCT: Aren't these assets equivalent? Ask the Third-worlder.

D: What makes for the difference?

JCT: One is scarce in reality, the other is kept scarce
artificially.

D: It seems to me that they are each valuable assets, and
that I should pay a reasonable "rent" in each case. I mean,
houses can't have babies either, it takes a lot of work to
build one, just like it takes a lot of work to acquire
$100,000 (the exact same amount of work, in the case of a
$100,000 house). I don't get it, Tom. Struggling to
understand, Thanks David

JCT: As long as they haven't mastered Inflation Shift B,
it's arguing with the blind. They do not see the same facts
that we do. Marc Gauvin's been debating with Graeme, I
rarely do. He thinks there is inflation because there is too
much money, Shift A. We know there is inflation because
there is too much collateral foreclosed out of the cage,
Shift B. You can't ever win a debate with people who don't
have the same premises?

Anyway, it's the hypnotic delusions that arise out of the
use of Mammon that will entertain posterity, hopefully soon,
though it's not so entertaining while we are still caught up
in the yoke of oppression and these off-target doubting
possible supporters have almost never ever turned into
anyone useful to engineering the interest-free world which
is why I am so pessimistic if he who hears does not get it
almost right away. I tend to tell this type to join a LETS
and leave the geopolitical consequences to those who have
mastered Mammon's systems engineering blueprints at
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/bankmath.htm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Kennedy"
To: "David"
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 11:54 AM
Subject: Confirming my definition of a usuryfree society ...
> Good Sunday Morning David:
> As an active 'usuryfree creative' I am seeking to live in
> a society where usury is absolutely abolished. I choose
> not to get bogged down in 'issues' about 'interest
> earnings' on money. Instead, I choose to promote the
> 'eternal truth' which is optimally stated in these words:
> "Thou shalt not take usury of another man."
>
> An old and wise 'social creditor' from Quebec, who was the
> grandfather of one of my best friends and has since
> departed this dimension once said to my best friend: 'As
> you grow up Johnny, please remember these two eternal
> truths: (1) usury is theft (2) money cannot have babies...
> This wise 'social creditor' pointed out that a farmer with
> a bull and cows can experience an increase in his herd and
> therefore it is physically possible for the farmer to pay
> any investor profit who invested money in his farm to get
> the enterprise off the ground - so to speak.
> Likewise, the 'social creditor' explained that a grain
> farmer can sow seeds of grain and these seeds will grow
> and create and increase in seeds. Therefore, the farmer
> can pay any investor profit who invested money in the
> spring when the farmer needed money to buy the seeds and
> cultivate the soil.
>
> In both of these examples it is possible for an increase
> to happen in the physical world. It is impossible for a
> $10.00 bill, $50.00 bill, $100 bill or any amount of paper
> money to produce an increase in baby pieces of paper money
> - because as the wise 'social creditor' said: 'Money
> cannot have babies.'
>
> Yes David, I will be very clear. In seeking to experience
> the reality of usuryfree living, I am choosing to live my
> life completely usuryfree. I will no charge any interest
> (usury) on any money loaned to any borrower nor will I pay
> any interest (usury) to a lender if I have to borrow in my
> time of want/need.
>
> I went through the experience of a bankruptcy in 2004 and
> 2005 thereby wiping out all of my usury-bearing debt and
> at this point in my life of 57 years I can truly say that
> I am experiencing the reality of usuryfree living as I
> have absolutely no usury-bearing debt at this time. No
> personal loans, no mortgages, no credit cards. I am still
> paying a monthly fee to the Family Responsibility Office
> for child support arrears that I do not owe BUT the judge
> in Family Court believed the lies that the mother of my
> children told her and therefore she assessed me child
> support arrears BUT it is a fixed amount that bears no
> usury.
>
> It's unlikely that modern society will accept this
> universal and eternal truth and expose the design flaw of
> usury for the evil and deceptive plan that it is. It is
> unlikely that modern society will adopt and promote
> usuryfree living for the common good and abundance and
> prosperity of modern man but at least myself and other
> 'usuryfree creatives' are leading the way by example.
> Hopefully others will do their own research and pursue
> usuryfree living after they learn the truth about what
> usury (interest) is doing to society in this 21st Century.
> If yesterday's workshop with the Organic Farmers in
> Cornwall is any indication of an potential awakening of
> the masses to the power and potential of usuryfree living,
> then there might just be hope for the  re-birth of
> usuryfree communities in this 21st Century.
>
> Using this simple example as one that clearly states the
> problem: 'Most people will keep on borrowing $10.00 and
> promise to pay the banker back $11.00 (when the rate of
> interest (usury) is 10%) not realizing that they have
> agreed to an impossible contract. How can a lender
> possibly with a clear conscience agree to pay any banker
> back $11.00 when s/he only borrowed $10.00 and s/he knows
> that these pieces of paper money cannot have babies?
>
> What happens in society is that the borrowers must compete
> in the marketplace where every other borrower is likewise
> playing in a money game rigged by the lenders. If a
> borrower succeeds in earning enough money to pay back
> his/her principal plus the interest (usury) that means for
> sure another borrower will not be able to pay off his
> principal plus the interest (usury) and therefore the
> lender will foreclose on this borrower and steal the
> property that the borrower used as collateral when s/he
> signed that impossible contract for lack of knowledge
> about how our usury-based money system really works.
>
> To answer your initial question very clearly, I am fully
> supportive of anyone with abundance (money) to invest
> their abundance in any enterprise and earn profit (or
> experience loss) as the case may be - within the limits of
> the contract between the entrepreneur and the lender of
> the abundance. These potential earnings are earned from
> the success of the enterprise and not from the money
> itself.
>
> I object to any interest (usury) charged to a borrower by
> any lender on any money borrowed. Living a usuryfree
> lifestyle in a usuryfree society will be totally different
> than the world of war, violence, poverty, scarcity and
> lack that is currently experienced by most people in this
> 21st Century society. Only a very few lenders - who exact
> the interest (usury) are living in financial heaven. The
> majority of the people on planet earth are living a
> financial hell on earth and this is directly and/or
> indirectly caused by the 'design flaw of usury.'
>
> Our farmers in rural Ontario and in every other province
> are the 21st Century example of what happens when people
> are dumbed down to a point where they do not understand
> the real function of the design flaw of usury. The
> agribusinesses with the help of the banking cartel are
> currently stealing property from the hard-working farmers
> whose families have had these farms in their possession
> for countless generations.
>
> There is a hidden agenda for a few agribusiness
> corporations in cahoots with the banking cartel, to take
> over the family farms and make them all corporate farms
> and when this happens food can be used as a weapon and as
> consumers ignorant of how usury-based banking really
> works, they will deserve the critical experience of
> financial enslavement that they experience, for we as
> 'usuryfree creatives' are willingly sharing our resources
> and knowledge BUT for the most part it is being rejected
> by the 'Court of Public Review' - that is the common
> people who still believe that the banking corporations
> are there working to in the best 'interests' of the
> common people. NOT SO !!!
>
> David, having acquired this knowledge about how banking
> really works, I had two choices. I could ignore it and go
> on living a life where I selfishly survive in this game of
> financial usury-chairs or I could accept the challenge to
> continue being a student of 'usuryfree living' and set out
> to share my knowledge with those people who are ready and
> willing to 'learn what they didn't know they didn't know.'
>
> It was in 1980 that I started on this journey to study the
> real truth about 'money and banking' and for the past 26
> years, it has been my passion to seek universal and
> eternal truths about any of the 'issues' that arise in our
> daily lives.
>
> I consider Peter Farley to be one of my mentors. His
> website is: http://www.cosmologies.com/treeoflife
> Peter Farley recently wrote these words in an email to me:
> "Your ascension is guaranteed by your own work with those
> who still haven't made a choice. So don't worry about
> self, get on with what it is you think you should be doing
> for others but stay open to letting it change and grow as
> you open up wider to the Guidance that is always with you"
>
> Based on Peter's words of wisdom, I continue to offer
> workshops/seminars and private consultations to people who
> make requests for such. As an energy exchange for sharing
> time and my work and research experience, I engage in
> barter exchanges using any one of the various usuryfree
> community currencies that are now surfacing as my first
> choice and realizing that I still must be open to
> accepting gifts of federal cash to pay for travel costs
> (gasoline and vehicle repairs) and other necessities that
> are not yet readily available in the marketplace by using
> a usuryfree community currency.
>
> I have recently launched a simple 10 page publication
> called The UsuryFree News. It is designed to offer
> information about usury and money and banking in general
> and about usuryfree living in particular as more and more
> people are coming forth and requesting such information.
>
> I share these words from Peter Farley with you and I wish
> you great success with GRIP. You know from 10 years of
> experience in the publishing industry that publishing is a
> labour of love and not a selfish labour for profit.
> Enjoy this day! Working with you for 'peace and plenty' by
> 2020 AND 'Promoting the usuryfree fix for 2 oh oh 6' I AM
> Tom J. Kennedy otherwise known as 'Tommy UsuryFree'
> www.cyberclass.net > www.cyberclass.net/nousury.htm
> www.thirdmarket.net
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Shackleton
> Sent: February 26, 2006 8:12 AM
> To: Tom Kennedy
> Subject: Re: A little information about 'usury' ...
> Tom, The website you pointed me to gives this basic
> definition of usury."In summary, "interest" ought to be
> correctly called "usury" because any "interest" above 0%
> is really "usury" and anyone who earns "usury" is
> correctly defined as a "usurer."" Please confirm that in
> seeking a "usury free" society, as you do, you mean that
> you want one in which there is no interest charged on
> money borrowed, ever. Is that it? Thanks, David

JCT: And of course, the answer for David and others who
don't know what would be a fair return if Tom let you live
in my house while I was gone works the same as what be a
fair return if Tomk let you use the King's highways and it's
right from my poem to the Queen
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/pomlizas.htm or txt

"The only question left is how the tax should be assessed,
For goods and services? A simple formula to test.
For services, we'd levy tax at end of every year.
For assets, tax to pay depreciation. It's so clear.

JCT: All Tom has to ask the user to promise is to cover the
depreciation of my collateral while I'm gone so that when I
return with my chips, they retain the same value they held
originally. Of course, this can't work with the guys who
want to pay for the system with negative interest to make
the money worth less and less.

There a million financial delusions and I've probably
handled all over my years of writings but I've never been
able to say that I had convinced someone about Mammon
against their will. They either want to know the truth and
lap it up or the truth strikes at their cognitive dissonance
and they don't want to hear. Many even try to stop it from
being said, having their cognitive dissonance battered hurts
their brains so much.

Anyway, the quick answer to David would have been "why
presume a shortage of poker chips?" But since you did not
engage him in a dialogue within the "reality" model, it
permitted him to continue with the standard financial
delusions.

I check who's insane by asking if they think there's too
much money causing al that inflation in the world. If they
can't graps Shift B inflation, it's like trying to point the
way to the blind and the deaf. They'll end going wherever
anyway.



--
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: This is in response to the Crown's submissions at
http://yahoogroups.com/group/medpot/files/daren4cm.txt

Court File No. 03-20030

               IN THE ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
                         JOHN TURMEL
                                                    Applicant
                             And
                    HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
                                                   Respondent

     APPLICANT'S REPLY TO WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE CROWN

JCT: I will first point out and corredct errors in the
Crown's submissions on the issues and deal with those
issues at the same time.

1) Jurisdiction of court on amount greater than 3Kg.

CR: 1. The applicant was charged on May 14, 2003 with
possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking. He
was found to have 3.277 kilograms of marijuana in a duffel
bag he was carrying. Although the amount of marijuana in his
possession was over 3 kilograms, the Crown proceeded on a
charge of possession under 3 kilograms, pursuant to sections
5.(2) and 5.(4) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
(CDSA),

JCT: Every judge so far has been stunned to find out the Crown
admitted that the amount of the matter in question was more
than 3Kg. Why would all the judges challenge me that there was
as yet no evidence of more than 3Kg unless the amount
mattered?

CR: 2. Although the offence under section 5.(4) of the CDSA
is an indictable offence, it falls within the category of
"absolute jurisdiction" offences established in section
553.(c)(xi) of the Criminal Code. That is, the trial of an
offence under section 5 (4) of the CDSA is within the
absolute jurisdiction of a provincial court judge and the
accused person does not have the options of electing to have
a preliminary hearing and/or electing to be tried by a judge
of the superior court.

JCT: This is only true when the amount of the matter is less
than 3Kg. It's not true here with over 3Kg which should be
dealt with under s.5(3), not s.5(4).

CR: 6. On July 27, 2003 the applicant brought an application
in the Superior Court of Justice to "amend the information
or for particulars" in order to have the word "not" deleted
from the sentence "not exceeding 3 kgs". This application
was dismissed by Lalonde J....
8. On April 19, 2005 the applicant argued before Wright J. in
the Ontario Court of Justice that as on May 14. 2003 he was in
possession of an amount of marijuana greater than 3 kilograms,
s. 553 of the Criminal Code did not apply and he should have
an election as to his mode of trial. Wright J. dismissed the
application, stating that it was within the Crown's discretion
to decide what charge to proceed with and that "the accused
doesn't get a say in what charges are brought and the
consequent mode of trial.."
9. On April 25,2005 the applicant brought a purported
"application for certiorari before Roy J. in the Superior
Court of Justice seeking to quash the decision of Wright J.
The applicant did not identify either in his materials or in
oral submissions the jurisdictional error made by Wright L
such that the remedy of certiorari was available or
appropriate.

JCT: Applicant had pinpointed the lack of jurisdiction on the
amount of the matter being greater than 3Kg.

CR: 4. On May 26, 2003 the applicant brought a "motion to
quash for mandamus and prohibition" in the Superior Court of
Justice. He asked the court to quash the information as it
disclosed no offence known to law. The basis of his argument
was that the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R.
v. Parker', released on July 31, 2000, had invalidated all
prohibitions regarding marijuana contained in the CDSA. This
motion was dismissed by Aitken J. on the grounds that the
declaration made by the Court of Appeal in Parker related
only to section 4(1) of the CDSA and the applicant had been
charged under s.5(2) of that act.

JCT: Crown Attorney David Frankel argued in the Supreme
Court of Canada Krieger Memorandum that s.4(1) was also "by
implication" struck down with s.7(1). Ontario Superior Court
Justice Earle-Renton stated during my hearing that
possession for the purpose can't be a crime if possession
itself is not a crime. The thought crime contained in s.5(2)
is not possible all alone.

CR: 5. The applicant appealed the ruling made by Aitken J.
to the Court of Appeal. The court dismissed the appeal on
October 7, 2003

JCT: The R. v. Turmel ruling was that there was no need to
reprint the legislation when laws are struck down, that the
courts would remember which written laws are valid and which
are not, This not quite strict interpretation of criminal
statutes set a precedent that was inscribed in the Martin's
Criminal Code of Canada and resulted in hundreds of
thousands of Canadians charged and convicted while the law
was invalid and the last 4000 charges being stayed.
The application for leave to appeal the "no need to reprint,
we'll remember" decision was ready to be heard by the
Supreme Court panel when it was aborted by Justice Binnie
for getting one document in late. The "judges will remember
which written laws are valid and which are not" decision has
never been adjudicated on its merits, yet, but is going to
be now again.

CR: 10. On November 28,2005... MacLeod J. dismissed the
application for prohibition, finding that the Ontario Court
of Appeal's decision in R. v. Hitzig was binding on her.

JCT: Wrongful orders do not have to be obeyed. Ontario Judge
Edward asked the Crown in the Nielsen case to explain where
the Court of Appeal got the power to resurrect a statute
that had been struck down and the Crown said he could find
no such power but that they wouldn't have if they couldn't
have so they can. And it was binding on him. He obeyed and
continued the prosecution. Once penal sanctions have been
deemed to be repealed pursuant to s.2(2) of Parliament's
Interpretation Act, only Parliament has the power to
resurrect invalidated laws, not three power-mad jurists. And
since prohibition of epilepsy anti-seizure medicine has
resulted in more dead epileptics than necessary, lives have
been and are still being needlessly lost due to their error.
There is never reason to obey laws that result in genocide.

CR: 7) Ground One - the Krieger Decision
Whether an Appellant's stay of decision ends with status or
must be lifted.

CR: 15... Acton J... struck down s.7(l) to the extent that
it dealt with the production of cannabis marijuana. However
she suspended the declaration of invalidity for one year...
16. In 2001 the Alberta Court of Appeal extended the
suspension of the declaration of invalidity made by Acton J.
"until further order of the Court". In fact, that suspension
has never been lifted,

JCT: This is the crux of the issue. That suspension did not
have to be lifted because it expired when the Alberta Court
of Appeal became functus officio after it handed down a
further Final Order. A Final Order is the further Order of
the Court. Am I to prove that there are zero precedent cases
where interim orders pending appeal last past the appeal
when the court became functus officio? Or should the Crown
show just one where an Appellant's stay extended beyond the
lapse of the Appellant's status at the further Final Order
of the Appeal? The Cornelssen transcript of the exchange
with Scott Couper, Crown Attorney in the Krieger appeal has
just been received and will be mailed to the Court as
Appendix 18 but can be read immediately at
http://yahoogroups.com/group/medpot-discuss/files/cornqtrs.txt

"Q: Would you have had the right to ask for an extension of
the stay? Can you conceive of any circumstances where you
could ask for an extension of the stay if you were not the
appellant?
A: If we weren't the appellant?
Q: If we weren't the appellant.
A: It was a ---- it was -- it would be a -- it's the
appellant that has the right to ask for the stay."
[...

Q: So on the bottom of the -- of the page we see the
appellant seeks an extension of the constitutional exemption
and suspension of the order, and I've highlighted, Until the
final disposition of this appeal.
A: Yes.
Q: Now, does that not mean that when the appeal is over, the
extension is over?
A: Yes. If you look at page 10 of the -- of the brief
however, sir, under the title Relief Sought, I asked for an
extension of the period suspending the effect or enforcement
of the Trial Judge's order striking down Section 7(1) of the
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act from one year as
originally ordered, to until determination of the within
appeal or until further order of this Honourable Court.
[...

Q: THE ACCUSED: In -- in Mr. Couper's document. And Mr.
Couper, if you can find it first, feel free to bring it up.
A: Are you referring to paragraph 10?
Q Could you read it to me, please?
A This Honourable Court's authority to extend the stay
derives from Section 686(3) of the Criminal code.
Q Yes, yes. That's what I'm referring to.
A All right.
Q Now, it seems to me that if you were not the appellant the
Judge would not have the power to grant that extension, is
that a correct interpretation of that?
A Well, it's -- it's -- it's triggered by an appeal.
Q: Yes, yes --
A Yes.
Q: So no appeal, no right to grant an extension.
A: Yes.
Q: So you couldn't just walk in there and say, Gee, we
really didn't like that decision and we'd like it suspended
for some indefinite period. It depends upon the appeal?
A: Yes.
Q: So my point is that when the appeal has been heard then
on December the 4th and a final judgment has been passed
down, that the appeal is ordered. A final order has been
issued, The appeal is over. Now, how can Mr. -- Judge
O'Leary's extension possibly last beyond the appeal?
A: Well, the order -- the order of Justice O'Leary is clear,
sir. It says until further order of the Court. And on
December 4th, 2002 when the appeal was heard the Court --
the Court of Appeal declined to address the issue of whether
the suspension should stay or remain, preferring instead
that a full hearing be held to determine that.

JCT: It is a ridiculous assertion that the Court of Appeal
would suggest a hearing with evidence on what the government
had done to comply with Acton J.'s decision when the Dec. 4
2002 decision in Appendix #2 has line 6 of 7 stating:
"Nor are we satisfied that the trial judge imposed any
positive obligation on the Crown to ensure supply. The trial
judge struck s.7(1). Her order imposed no obligation."

JCT: So an assertion that the court insisted upon a hearing
with evidence presented on what they had done to comply with
the judge's obligations is contradicted my the court's own
ruling that she had imposed no obligations to be met!

CR: presumably because subsequent legal challenges in
Ontario resulted in federal regulations allowing for lawful
access to marijuana for therapeutic use.7 The constitutional
defect in s.7(l) of the CDSA, which led Acton J. to strike
down the section, has thereby been addressed and remedied
and the suspension and declaration have become moot.

JCT: The MMAR was fixed too late by the Ontario Court of
Appeal to avoid the invalidation; on Oct 7 2003, three years
after her ruling in December 2000 and one year after the
Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in December
2002. During the whole time, there was an absence of
constitutionally acceptable medical exemption which is why
the Crown stayed charges against 4000.

CR: 18. The Krieger decision affected only s.7(l) of the
CDSA and, as Acton J. was careful to state, only to the
extent that that it dealt with the production of marijuana.
The applicant's assertion that s.7(l) "underpins" all other
marijuana prohibitions in the CDSA is neither factually nor
legally correct.

JCT: Crown Attorney David Frankel argued s.4(1) was by
implication also struck down in Krieger and Justice Earle-
Renton said the crime of possession for the illegal purpose
was by implication connected to there existing a crime for
possession. Makes sense to me.

CR: In fact, in the Krieger decision Acton J. upheld the
constitutionality of s.5(2) of the CDSA - the prohibition
against possession of marijuana for the purpose of
trafficking - which had also been challenged by Mr. Krieger.
Section 4.(1) of the CDSA - simple possession - was not
addressed in the Krieger case.

JCT: Section 4.(1) of the CDSA does not include the word
"simple" and possession was, by implication, addressed in
the Krieger case.

CR: 19. In any event, a decision made by an Alberta court
has no binding effect in the province of Ontario.

JCT: Stare decisis does not apply to equivalent courts but a
decision made by Alberta's highest court does have a binding
effect on lower courts in Canada just as the Ontario Court
of Appeals declaration that the prohibition had been
invalidated on Terry Parker Day 2001 was binding on all the
lower courts of other provinces which stayed the 4000
remaining charges, if not expunge the invalid convictions
they handed down nor apologize to their victims for the
court's errors.

CR: Even if the suspension of the order striking down s.7(1)
of the CDSA had been lifted in Alberta,

JCT: Or had expired as the transcript of the Cornelssen
application to quash shows.

CR: this would not have changed the status of that provision
in Ontario.

JCT: This court must decide if stare decisis continues to
apply to lower courts, Your Honour included, who all had to
stay those 4000 charges in December 2003 because only one
appellate court, the Ontario Court of Appeal, struck down
the possession law for when the Alberta Court of Appeal
struck down the cultivation law.

CR: 21.... Mr. Parker... found that by smoking marijuana he
could substantially reduce the incidence of his seizures..

JCT: Not "substantially reduce" but "prevent." Since Parker
has had full-time access to marijuana whenever he felt the
aura of a seizure coming on, he says he has had only one
seizure in the past 9 years from more than 80 per day. This
is important to stress when pointing out how many epileptics
could have been saved but were not due to the court's supra-
jurisdictional resurrection of a killer law.

CR: 22. In response to the Court of Appeal's declaration of
invalidity the federal government enacted the Marihuana
Medical Access Regulations (MMAR), which came into force on
July 30, 2001. Eleven applicants, including Mr. Parker, a
Mr. Hitzig. and Mr. Turmel, then sought orders from the
Superior Court declaring that the MMAR violated their s,7
rights.

JCT: Justice Lederman ruled that I had no status to
challenge the Marijuana Medical Access Regulations because I
a healthy person and they do not apply to me. Fortunately, I
was challenging the CDSA prohibition system that was
affecting me, not the MMAR permission system which was not,
but Justice Lederman's confusing me with the sick has been
passed along. Also, neither had Parker or Paquette
challenged the MMAR but we all sought to have the CDSA
prohibition declared invalidated in 2001 so we wouldn't need
any exemptions at all.

CR: On January 9, 2003, Lederman J. declared the MMAR
invalid as they failed to adequately provide for a legal,
safe and reliable source of marijuana.

JCT: In the Hitzig case while dismissing our imagined
challenge to the MMAR. Even the later Court of Appeal noted
he ignored our real challenge to the CDSA before they
declared the Parker decision to have taken effect and
resulting in the 4000 stays.

CR: He suspended this declaration of invalidity for six
months.

JCT: Before this, on March 15 2002, Ontario Superior Court
Justice Pitt had found that the government has not complied
with the Ontario Court of Appeal's ruling and extended the
exemption granted to Parker by that court until the
government complies.

CR: All parties appealed.

JCT: Parker, Turmel and Paquette appealed and were the
Appellants, the Crown was the Respondent and Cross-appealed
and the Hitzigs were only Respondents in the Cross-appeal.
So Parker, Turmel, Paquette appealed forcing the Crown to
respond, the Respondent Crown cross-appealed forcing the
Hitzigs to respond in the cross-appeal. On Jun 25 2003, the
style of cause correctly showed
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/june/parkerM29602.htm

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
BEFORE: CARTHY J.A. (IN CHAMBERS)

RE: TERRANCE PARKER (Appellant and Respondent in Cross-
appeal) - and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Cross-appellant and Respondent in
Appeal)
BETWEEN: WARREN HITZIG ET AL. (Cross-appellants and
Respondents in appeal) - and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Appellant and Respondent in Cross-
appeal)
BETWEEN: JOHN C. TURMEL ET AL. (Appellants and Respondents
in Cross-Appeal) - and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Cross-appellant and Respondent in
appeal)

In the later decision, the court switched the order of the
names in the style of cause to highlight the "Respondents in
the cross-appeal."

http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/october/hitzigC39532.htm
BEFORE: DOHERTY, GOUDGE and SIMMONS JJ.A.

BETWEEN: WARREN HITZIG, ALISON MYRDEN, MARY-LYNNE CHAMNEY,
CATHERINE DEVRIES, JARI DVORAK, STEPHEN VAN DE KEMP, DEBORAH
ANNE STULTZ-GIFFIN AND MARCO RENDA Respondents/Appellants in
Cross-Appeal - and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Appellant/Respondent in Cross-Appeal

AND BETWEEN:
TERRANCE PARKER Appellant/Respondent in Cross-Appeal - and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent/Appellant in Cross-Appeal
AND BETWEEN: JOHN C. TURMEL AND MARC J.J. PAQUETTE
Appellants/Respondents in Cross-Appeal
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent/Appellant in Cross-Appeal

Also, the Court of Appeal mislabelled the mislabelled the
Hitzig group as Appellants in the cross-appeal which they
had not initiated and Crown as the Respondent of the cross-
appeal that it had initiated.

CR: 23. In Hitzig, the Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed
the federal government's appeal

JCT: The government did not appeal, we did.

CR: and found that the MMAR were unconstitutional and a
violation of the applicants' section 7 rights as they failed
to craft an adequate medical exemption into the offence of
possession of marijuana in section 4 of the CDSA. Rather
than strike down the MMAR in their entirety and declare s.4
of the CDSA to be of no force and effect, the Court set
aside the declaration of invalidity made by Lederman J. and
crafted a narrower remedy more specifically targeted to the
shortcomings it identified in the MMAR. The Court itself
created a constitutionally valid medical exemption to s.4 of
the CDSA,

JCT: Despite the Parker Court having said it was not up to
the courts to so but up to Parliament!

CR: thereby making s.4 of full force and effect in Ontario
as of October 7, 2003.

JCT: Once the prohibition had been invalidated for 2 years,
it was too late for any court to bring it back to life. Then
only Parliament could be making s.4 of full force and effect
in Ontario after it had been deemed repealed. Courts can't
bring the capital punishment back for the same reason.

CR: However, the court found that between July 31, 2001 (the
date that the suspension of invalidity declared in Parker
expired) and October 7, 2003, there had been no
constitutionally valid prohibition against the possession of
marijuana in Ontario.

JCT: Once the prohibition was not constitutionally valid,
pursuant to the Interpretation Act, it had to be deemed
repealed, not absent.

CR: 24. On the same day that it released the Hitzig
decision, the Court of Appeal released its decision on the
applicant's appeal of the judgment of Aitken J.1 (See
paragraph 4.) The applicant had argued that the effect of
the court's ruling in Parker was to delete marijuana from
schedule II of the CDSA, therefore rendering all marijuana
offences in the CDSA "of no force and effect".

JCT: Since the government did not reflect the invalidation
by adding "except marijuana" to the prohibition of anything
on the Schedule of banned substances.

CR: 25. The court held that the applicant's argument was
based on a "fundamental misconception" and said the
following: The declaration of invalidity made by this court
in Parker... 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 listing
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. Thus
Aitken J. was correct to dismiss the appellant's argument
and we would dismiss his appeal.11 (emphasis added)

JCT: Yes, the court did say there was no need to reprint new
legislation, no need to write it down, the courts will
remember which written laws are valid and which are not.

CR: 26. It is respectfully submitted that the grounds upon
which this application is based been ruled upon by the
Ontario Court of Appeal and said ruling is binding on this
Court. Both of the grounds stated by the applicant in his
Notice of Application to Quash are premised on the argument
that all prohibitions against marijuana in the CDSA have
been "struck down" or "are of no force and effect", This is
the precise point addressed by the Court of Appeal in its
ruling on R. v, Turmel, quoted above in paragraph 25, and
characterized by the Court as a "fundamental misconception".

JCT: No court is bound to follow a wrong order. The Court of
Appeal erred in advising courts to ignore the Interpretation
Act Section 2(2) that says struck down statutes are to be
deemed repealed and to only deem them absent until fixed by
courts, which the Parker Court said it should not do. If the
Parker Court would not do Parliament's job and craft an
exemption, why should the Hitzig Court?

The Section 4(1) prohibition on possession of marijuana was
struck down by the highest court in Ontario which was
binding by stare decisis on all lower courts of Canada where
the 4000 charges were stayed and the Section 7(1)
prohibition on cultivation (and my implication section 4(1)
possession) of marijuana was struck down by the highest
court in Alberta which, not overturned by the Supreme Court,
is binding on all lower courts in Canada.

You have been asked by the Crown to ignore stare decisis.
You have been ordered by the highest court in Ontario to
ignore Parliament.
You have been beseeched by The Engineer to your your duty to
justice and not obey evil orders from above. Given the
genocide of the epileptics by the prohibition of the best
anti-seizure medication available, disobeying the evil order
that occasioned such slaughter is a matter of national
importance.

From my poem on battling the genocide of usury at
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/pombank.htm

EQUATION OF RESPONSIBILITY
I pointed out they had the might to instantaneously,
Effect repair on our industrial capacity.
It's just like a conveyer belt with people in a line,
Who fall into abyss of Luciferian design.
If you could press a button and cut power to the beast,
The belt would have momentum but you'd lose the very least.
With the production maximized of butter, not of guns,
We still could not get there in time for all the weakest ones.
So there would be a finite loss of souls until the day,
When all may access credit and for life support may pay.
But if you'd waited for a while before you used your might,
You'd lose some extra souls for failing to so expedite.
And if you had refused to press the button to this day,
It would, on you, the blame for every fallen soul we'd lay.
With simple mathematics we can count the number who,
Have perished by inaction of the men with power few.
The number of souls perishing, all due to the delay,
Is equal to the number who do perish on that day.
With 40,000 children dying every single day,
Responsibility belongs to those who had the say.
Since all the judges had the power to compel the banks,
To fix the killer program so they don't deserve our thanks.
The number they must answer for which day to day does climb,
Is equal to the number who have perished since that time.
Each motion was a shot on goal, a chance to fix the flaw,
I took as many as I could but interest is law.

JUDGES RESPONSIBLE
Six times I went right to the top and all to no avail,
Since they found it too hard to grasp, the motions all did fail.
The judges all ruled that they failed to see what they could do,
They could not change the software to the service charges few.

JCT: This is a similar though less murderous situation where

"It's just like a conveyer belt with epileptics in a line,
Falling 4 per day into abyss of Luciferian design.
If you could press a button and cut power to the beast,
The belt would stop its running so you'd lose the very least.
But if you'd waited for a while before you used your might,
You'd lose four extra souls a day for failing to so expedite.
And if you had refused to press the button to this day,
It would, on you, the blame for every fallen soul we'd lay.
With simple mathematics we can count the number who,
Have perished by inaction of the men with power few.
The number of souls perishing, all due to the delay,
Is equal to the number who do perish on that day.
With four new epileptics dying each and every day,
Responsibility belongs to you who had the say.

Dated at Brantford on February 26 2006
____________________________
For the Applicant/Accused
John C. Turmel, B. Eng.
8-37 Colborne E.
Brantford, N3T 2G3
Tel/Fax: 519-753-0645
Email: turmel@...

For the Plaintiff:
Allyson Ratsoy
Federal Prosecution Service Ottawa-Gatineau
160 Elgin St. #2403 Ottawa, K1A 0H8
Tel: 613-941-6656 Fax: 613-957-9043
Email: allyson.ratsoy@...

JCT: Judge Belanger hands down his decision on March 10 in
Ottawa in courtroom #7. If the judge decides that the law
has been resurrected by the higher court, then I'll have to
file my constitutional motion to argue that the law is bad
after losing that the law was invalidated.



--
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: Now that Bill Ryan can't back up any criticisms in
banking systems engineering, he has resorted to using an
automated bot to respond to all of my posts with "John
Turmel drinks his own piss."

For instance, you can't find today's article in the general
list at Google Groups if you search turmel sorted on date:

turmel - can.politics news.admin.n...ightings
Searched all groups Results 1 - 50 of 8,710 for turmel.
Sort by relevance  Sorted by date alt.fan.john-turmel

TURMEL: #B "Trial start before Judge Belanger" Transcript
alt.fan.john-turmel - Feb 26, 7:51 pm by John Turmel

TAJPROFESSOR: Turmel2Step 1-opponent Turn Quiz #09
alt.fan.john-turmel - Feb 26, 5:12 pm by John Turmel

John Turmel drinks his own piss.
John Turmel drinks his own piss. Lest anyone suspect that
this is intended by me to be an egregious insult to this one
man freakshow ...
can.politics - Feb 26, 2:36 pm by w_b_r...@...

ryan v turmel
On Feb 20 Ryan admitted setting up a script to auto post a
response of no general interest whenever it detects a post
from John Turmel. ...
news.admin.net-abuse.sightings - Feb 25, Kelly Bert Manning

TAJPROFESSOR: Turmel2Step 1-opponent Turn Quiz #08
alt.fan.john-turmel - Feb 25, 2:56 pm by John Turmel

John Turmel drinks his own piss
news.admin.net-abuse.sightings - Feb 25, Kelly Bert Manning

JCT: Click on the first "Turmel drinks his own piss" and
you'll find that the underlying article to which Ryan
responded was:

TURMEL: Exciting IJCCR Sun Money debates turn to Ducknipples
1 John Turmel Feb 26
John Turmel drinks his own piss.
2 w_b_r...@... Feb 26

Of course, when he started his juvenile responses, I laughed
that it was all he had left in his debate with me. And it
was advertising a health therapy I really do want to promote
so I wasn't too upset until I realized he was covering up
the original articles, so it's a lot more sabotage than
merely adding commentary. It hides the underlying article.
Luckily, there was a complaint about his obsession:

ryan v turmel
>From:  Kelly Bert Manning - view profile
>Date:  Sat, Feb 25 2006 1:02 pm
>Email: Kelly Bert Manning <b...@...>
>Groups: news.admin.net-abuse.sightings

On Feb 20 Ryan admitted setting up a script to auto post a
response of no general interest whenever it detects a post
from John Turmel. Fighting usenet abuse with abuse is also
abuse.

>Article 177448 of can.legal:
>Path:
ncf.ca!news.kjsl.com!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!i39g2000cwa.googleg=roup\
s.com!not-for-mail
>From: w_b_r...@...
>Newsgroups: can.legal,alt.drugs,sci.econ,sci.engr,alt.conspiracy
>Subject: John Turmel drinks his own piss.
>Date: 25 Feb 2006 03:02:50 -0800

John Turmel drinks his own piss.
Lest anyone suspect that this is intended by me to be
an egregious insult to this one man freakshow, he
proudly announced yesterday to the twenty or thirty
USENET lists he routinely spams that he does so:-
http://www.geocities.com/w_b_ryan/turmel-urine.txt
---
JCT: And yet, despite arguments between today's
practitioners, yesteryear's practitioners had little
else to use as a powerful disinfectant and curative.
They had to know what I have experienced...
"Emmanuel Konig, of Basel, in his book The Animal
Kingdom (1683) recommended drinking one's urine to
heal heartburn, depression, gout, toothaches, colic,
jaundice, and high fevers. Daniel Bockher, a German
physician, in 1622 published a popular work titled
Medicus Microcosmos. It praises the healing properties
of urine, excrement, lice, sperm, tapeworms, and ear
wax."
JCT: I can attest it works for my heartburn! I went
from one roll of Rolaids per week to two rolls per
year! nvalid.
--

All postings to news.admin.net-abuse.sightings are
unconfirmed and unverified unless stated otherwise by the
moderators.  All opinions expressed above are considered the
opinions of the original poster, not the moderators or their
respective employers.

JCT: Anyway, the pseudo-socred has shown his obsessive
lunatic streak. Sadly, destroying people's access to my
posts was his only response.




--
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: http://yahoogroups.com/group/ijccr is where I debate
questions of banking systems engineering. A while back, my
article "SunMoney: A new Combination Economy NOT" did an
analysis of Kevin Parcell's Sunmoney "riding-his-bicycle-
backwards" system.

Since then, he reacted by continuing his erroneous words and
got taken apart by Marc Gauvin, one of the powerful
abolitionists on the planet. Less powerful than me because
I'd have won the debate sooner by betting and making Parcell
back down. Marc won too but more gently and without Parcell
backing down. I only use the bet when I want a gnurd to back
down but never when I want one to keep arguing with me for
the entertainment of the crowd. Marc didn't mention it but
he picketed the Bank of Canada and Parliament with us on
Thursdays in the early years and we used to call economists
would come out to argue with us and keep coming with "but
what about this..." to keep taking their beatings "gnurds,"
guys who just could not believe they were getting beaten up
but kept coming back for more because it "just can't be as
simple as using poker chips for money."

Instead of taking is beating like a man and joining the
winning UNILETS model, he reacted like a juvenile delinquent
or agent provocateur and titled his response to Gauvin's
winning arguments as "Ducknipples."

Of course, his resorting to such juvenile tactics upon being
unable to take on Gauvin's points head on have offended the
professorial types in the group who have complained to the
moderator to censor the foul mouth who has tried to reduce
the tone of the debate to his base level.

Still, I loved it. I could see were Marc was going to smash
him and the low-tech lunatic deserved it. And now there are
calls to shut the foul-mouth off? Cut out a gnurd who's
ready to keep arguing and take his beatings? So he can then
run around saying he was forced out because no one could
argue with his system!

The topic of discussion was banking systems engineering and
whether one of the participants was reduced to resorting to
juvenile tactics or not, it was proper for the
forum. It only confirmed that Marc had bludgeoned Kevin's
brain so beyond reason that he had been reduced to an
blathering idiot who offended everyone who following their
debate. Imagine if one debater responded "ducknipples" in
any real life debate. Would someone have to intervene or is
it enough that he is seen to have lost the debate? Yes. No
need to intervene, losing is enough.

Yet, rather than be offended that Kevin had been shown up so
badly, I was highly entertained at his righteously merited
ignominious defeat at the hands of one our abolitionist
team.

Now, of course, one of the complainers egging on the
censorship of this exciting oratorial combat was Richard
Kay, moderator of what used to be the premier social
currency newsgroups at econ-lets. Search for us and you'll
read that just before posts to his group died out, he had
kicked the most controversial writer off because some
readers were offended at what they didn't have to read. That
most controversial writer moved over to ijccr where I got
away with the most vicious beatings because I stayed focused
on the topic. The readers of econ-lets who did not want to
read my posts and did not want anyone else reading my posts
either won out with Richard Kay and his un-free group then
died from lack of controversial subjects.

So, I would urge the moderator to simply ignore the
complaints from those who do not have to read the debates on
banking systems engineering and let those of us who are
titillated by the heated debate read them. No one has to
read these heated debates between a Turmel-school of banking
systems engineering graduate and a low-tech moron or a
bankster agent provocateur mole sent in to disrupt our
scholarly debates. Besides, even I can learn from someone
else's responses to the same questions I've always also had
to face but might have settled with less thought and "flash
the cash" in their faces.

I was even going to suggest that to make IJCCR really
exciting, we should take this over to the audio and video
chat function of yahoogroups and let Marc and Kevin debate
it out, but with a bet riding on the question drawn up in
advance. Then use the polling function for ijccr members to
vote on the winner of the debate.

I'll wager 8 Hours or $100 Canadian on any question Marc
will bet on.

Of course, once one debater has been reduced to ducknipples
as a response, I can't see too many people wanting to bet on
him so maybe I'll offer 2:1 odds to start on Gauvin.

And Marc, thanks for taking the time to tear this lunatic to
shreds. It serves up angles in theory I rarely use and
seeing your opponent foaming at the mouth is priceless
entertainment when one realizes it's real.

When he responded: Ducknipples, it was over. After that,
it would have been mere pummeling.



--
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

questions of banking systems engineering. A while back, my
article "SunMoney: A new Combination Economy NOT" did an
analysis of Kevin Parcell's Sunmoney "riding-his-bicycle-
backwards" system.

Since then, he reacted by continuing his erroneous words and
got taken apart by Marc Gauvin, one of the powerful
abolitionists on the planet. Less powerful than me because
I'd have won the debate sooner by betting and making Parcell
back down. Marc won too but more gently and without Parcell
backing down. I only use the bet when I want a gnurd to back
down but never when I want one to keep arguing with me for
the entertainment of the crowd. Marc didn't mention it but
he picketed the Bank of Canada and Parliament with us on
Thursdays in the early years and we used to call economists
would come out to argue with us and keep coming with "but
what about this..." to keep taking their beatings "gnurds,"
guys who just could not believe they were getting beaten up
but kept coming back for more because it "just can't be as
simple as using poker chips for money."

Instead of taking is beating like a man and joining the
winning UNILETS model, he reacted like a juvenile delinquent
or agent provocateur and titled his response to Gauvin's
winning arguments as "Ducknipples."

Of course, his resorting to such juvenile tactics upon being
unable to take on Gauvin's points head on have offended the
professorial types in the group who have complained to the
moderator to censor the foul mouth who has tried to reduce
the tone of the debate to his base level.

Still, I loved it. I could see were Marc was going to smash
him and the low-tech lunatic deserved it. And now there are
calls to shut the foul-mouth off? Cut out a gnurd who's
ready to keep arguing and take his beatings? So he can then
run around saying he was forced out because no one could
argue with his system!

The topic of discussion was banking systems engineering and
whether one of the participants was reduced to resorting to
juvenile tactics or not, it was proper for the
forum. It only confirmed that Marc had bludgeoned Kevin's
brain so beyond reason that he had been reduced to an
blathering idiot who offended everyone who following their
debate. Imagine if one debater responded "ducknipples" in
any real life debate. Would someone have to intervene or is
it enough that he is seen to have lost the debate? Yes. No
need to intervene, losing is enough.

Yet, rather than be offended that Kevin had been shown up so
badly, I was highly entertained at his righteously merited
ignominious defeat at the hands of one our abolitionist
team.

Now, of course, one of the complainers egging on the
censorship of this exciting oratorial combat was Richard
Kay, moderator of what used to be the premier social
currency newsgroups at econ-lets. Search for us and you'll
read that just before posts to his group died out, he had
kicked the most controversial writer off because some
readers were offended at what they didn't have to read. That
most controversial writer moved over to ijccr where I got
away with the most vicious beatings because I stayed focused
on the topic. The readers of econ-lets who did not want to
read my posts and did not want anyone else reading my posts
either won out with Richard Kay and his un-free group then
died from lack of controversial subjects.

So, I would urge the moderator to simply ignore the
complaints from those who do not have to read the debates on
banking systems engineering and let those of us who are
titillated by the heated debate read them. No one has to
read these heated debates between a Turmel-school of banking
systems engineering graduate and a low-tech moron or a
bankster agent provocateur mole sent in to disrupt our
scholarly debates. Besides, even I can learn from someone
else's responses to the same questions I've always also had
to face but might have settled with less thought and "flash
the cash" in their faces.

I was even going to suggest that to make IJCCR really
exciting, we should take this over to the audio and video
chat function of yahoogroups and let Marc and Kevin debate
it out, but with a bet riding on the question drawn up in
advance. Then use the polling function for ijccr members to
vote on the winner of the debate.

I'll wager 8 Hours or $100 Canadian on any question Marc
will bet on.

Of course, once one debater has been reduced to ducknipples
as a response, I can't see too many people wanting to bet on
him so maybe I'll offer 2:1 odds to start on Gauvin.

And Marc, thanks for taking the time to tear this lunatic to
shreds. It serves up angles in theory I rarely use and
seeing your opponent foaming at the mouth is priceless
entertainment when one realizes it's real.

When he responded: Ducknipples, it was over. After that,
it would have been mere pummeling.



--
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 posted this at
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/medpot/files/daren5tr.txt

Information No. 03-20030
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
V.
JOHN C. TURMEL
***
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R. BELANGER
on December 15, 2005, at Ottawa, Ontario
CHARGE: s.5(2) C.D.S.A.
APPEARANCES: Ms. A. Ratsoy  Counsel for the Federal Crown
Mr. J. Turmel acting on his own behalf

[continued...

U P O N   R E S U M I N G:

COURTROOM CLERK: This court is now reconvened. Please be
seated.
THE COURT: All right, thank you. The matter before me is one
which clearly falls within the jurisdiction of this court,
and apart from proceeding with the matter, nothing done by
the court so far, in my view, amounts to jurisdictional
error. Neither is the court usurping a jurisdiction, nor
acting otherwise outside its jurisdictional limits. And I
continue simply by saying that this is not a matter
involving an injustice done -- or, at least, none made
apparent to me -- to Mr. Turmel justifying removal to a
superior court in the exercise of its supervisory
jurisdiction. Thus, it appears to me that prerogative
remedies are not the appropriate route in a matter of this
nature, as opposed to proceeding by way of appeal. But, I
admit that I may be wrong in that analysis, and in the event
that prerogative writs are available to Mr. Turmel, his
resort thereto has already been dismissed by a superior
court.
The issue before me therefore becomes, as I stated
previously, whether or not, pending appeal, my jurisdiction
is ousted -- that is, pending appeal in a case where the
applicant has had a negative result, whether my jurisdiction
is ousted until the matter is determined with finality by
courts up the hierarchical chain. In support of his argument
in favour of that proposition, Mr. Turmel cites R. v.
Batchelor [1978] 2 S.C.R., 988, and specifically makes
reference to the comments of the Supreme Court of Canada at
page A12 of that decision. There, the Court said, and I
quote:
Notwithstanding the view taken in Re Holman and Rea that an
inferior court ought to desist as a matter of courtesy when
it is aware of the challenge to its jurisdiction brought
before a superior court, the Manitoba Court of Appeal in
Hannon v. Eisler [[1955] 1 D.L.R. 183], a case dealing with
custody proceedings, said speaking through Coyne J.A. (at p.
195) that "as a general rule I think it can be laid down
that the inferior tribunal is bound to desist on application
for prohibition in the Queen's Bench and while an appeal is
pending in the Court of Appeal from a decision thereon if
the tribunal is aware of [the] application or appeal
because, among other reasons, such an appeal is a 'step in
the cause or matter in which it is taken'... and the cause
or matter is not complete until after the step, if
undertaken, is completed".
Now, the Crown responds to that argument by providing me
with a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal in R. v,
Boutin, one decided much more recently, June of 1990, and I
think it is sufficient for me simply to read the headnote,
where it says this:
Certiorari is essentially a discretionary remedy and
notwithstanding that the Criminal Code, in section 784(1),
gives the accused a right to appeal from the dismissal of an
application for certiorari, this does not give the accused a
right to a stay of the trial proceedings pending the appeal.
The power to stay is as discretionary as are the certiorari
proceedings themselves. The test for granting a stay of
proceedings pending an appeal should be the same as the test
for granting of an interlocutory injunction. The accused
therefore must establish a prima facie case for at least, in
constitutional matters, the existence of a serious question;
the accused must show that unless the stay were granted he
would suffer irreparable harm, and finally, it must be shown
that the balance of convenience favours the granting of a
stay by determining which of the two would suffer the
greater harm if the stay were granted or refused. And these
three conditions appear not to be alternative one to the
other, but cumulative.
The Boutin case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada,
and, as the annotation mentions, leave to appeal.... I say,
as it mentions.... Where is that mentioned, Miss Ratsoy?
MS. RATSOY: Your Honour, it's mentioned both right at the
top, on - included in part of the headnote, and I had
attached the page from the Criminal Cases. But, directly
on....
THE COURT: In any event, it is not disputed that application
for leave to appeal of the Quebec Court of Appeal decision
was denied. In those circumstances, it appears to me that
the only conclusion I can come to is that the Supreme Court
of Canada reversed itself from the position in the case of
R. v. Batchelor and that the prevailing law at the moment is
that as outlined in I?, v. Boutin.
Mr. Turmel, of course, if this matter proceeds, is perfectly
free to make his arguments before me in relation to the
invalidity of the legislation, and, of course, he will be
completely free to appeal any ruling which I make at the
conclusion of the case if the matter concludes negatively to
his interests. That does not mean to say that there is not
also an equal possibility that he may be acquitted on these
charges on the substantive issues that underlie those
factual allegations contained in the Information, and, in my
view, has simply not suffered, or demonstrated that he
suffers, any prejudice from having the case tried on its
merits and receiving a judgment which has considered his
arguments -- and as I have said, he can appeal if the
decision is contrary to his interests.
And I simply conclude by saying, as I mentioned, I think,
previously this morning, that there is a strong undercurrent
underlying our jurisprudence that cases ought to be tried on
their merits so that as complete a record as possible is
available to reviewing courts in an appellate position. Now,
the multiplicity of unsuccessful appellate proceedings
undertaken by Mr. Turmel so far, I think, to some extent,
justify a suspicion -- and I leave it at that -- that Mr.
Turmel is not interested in having this case tried on its
merits. The case will proceed, and I'll obviously hear
carefully from all parties at the conclusion of the matter
once all of the evidence is in before me. Thank you, that's
my ruling.
MS. RATSOY: Thank you, Your Honour.
THE COURT: The charges will be read to Mr. Turmel, Madam
Clerk, please. Mr. Turmel, would you stand and be arraigned?
COURTROOM CLERK: Sorry, just one moment, please?
MR. TURMEL: Before I plead, I'd like to make my motion to
quash...
THE COURT: Thank you, we'll....
MR. TURMEL:...which is a pre-plea application.
THE COURT: You'll be arraigned first, sir....
[Brief off-record conversation between the Courtroom Clerk
and His Honour.]
THE COURT: Well, it's right there, is it not?
COURTROOM CLERK: No, it's just the one page of it.
THE COURT: Well, have you got the front page, anyway?
COURTROOM CLERK: I've got the back. Sorry, just a moment.
Ah, there they are. Okay. John Turmel, you are charged, on
or about the 14th day of May, in the year 2003, at the City
of Ottawa, in the said Region, unlawfully did, for the
purpose of trafficking, possess a substance included in
Schedule II of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, to
wit, an amount not exceeding three kilograms of cannabis
marijuana, contrary to section 5(2) of the said Act, thereby
committing an indictable offence under section 5(4) of the
said Act. How do you plead to this charge -- guilty, or not
guilty?
MR. TURMEL: Pursuant to section 606(2), I stand mute.
THE COURT: Thank you. A plea of 'not guilty' will be
entered, Madam Clerk.
COURTROOM CLERK: Thank you. Please be seated.
THE COURT: Now, you say you have a preliminary motion?
MR. TURMEL: Yes, but it has to be done before a plea, or
with leave of the court. So.... This was the one I filed
earlier.
THE COURT: Yeah. You haven't pleaded, so that's fine.
MR. TURMEL: Pardon?
THE COURT: You haven't pleaded.
MR. TURMEL: Okay. All right. Okay, this application. This is
an application for an order quashing charges relating to
marijuana under section 5(2) on the grounds that section 7
and section 4 of the C.D.S.A. have been invalidated by the
Krieger and Parker courts and have never been re-enacted,
and since possession and cultivation underpin all the other
charges, if they do not exist, then I would argue the other
charges should not either. Two, an order staying any charges
for marijuana as an abuse of the court process on the
grounds all statutes related to them are of no force and
effect, and the Crown is aware of it. So, the grounds of the
application are.... If you would turn to Exhibit 10, which
is on page....
MS. RATSOY: Sorry, Mr. Turmel, which application record are
you reading from?
MR. TURMEL: The record of application to quash.
MS. RATSOY: And what return date was this....
MR. TURMEL: This was supposed to be heard on December the
1st, 2005, and the judge said it was a little too big to be
dealt with at that time. That's it, uhm-hm.
MS. RATSOY: Does the Court have a copy of this?
MR. TURMEL: Yes, I believe so.
MS. RATSOY: Thank you.
THE COURT: I take it the argument that you're making -- I'm
not saying I won't hear it, but the argument that you're
making is exactly the same argument that you made before the
Court of Appeal.
MR. TURMEL: No.
THE COURT: No? It's different?
MR. TURMEL: Yeah. You see, when I was at the Court of
Appeal, that was before anybody knew about the Krieger
decision.
THE COURT: Okay. Then...
MR. TURMEL: So that's why I'm talking about the Krie....
THE COURT:...who.... Which of the judges mentions Krieger?
I think.... Is it Justice....
MS. RATSOY: Justice MacLeod.
THE COURT: MacLeod, yeah, of the Superior Court, right?
MR. TURMEL: That's right.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. TURMEL: Now, she only ga....
THE COURT: And so is it the same issue as was argued before
MacLeod J.?
MR. TURMEL: Yes, except she only gave me half an hour.
THE COURT: Okay, but it was dealt with by Justice MacLeod,
and I take it at the end of this exercise, I may very well
be forced to tell you that I'm bound by her decision.
MR. TURMEL: I understand.
THE COURT: But I'm not precluding you from making the
argument.
MR. TURMEL: Yes.
THE COURT: I just want you to know that that is the
situation.
MR. TURMEL: Oh, I understand I'm going to be asking you to
go against a lot of Ontario precedent. So, yes.
THE COURT: Well, not going against precedent. I mean, I'm
bound by a decision. I can't just go off on a frolic of my
own, Mr. Turmel...
MR. TURMEL: well....
THE COURT:...and refuse to follow a direction by a superior
court which is binding on me.
MR. TURMEL: Well, that's what the Nuremberg argument was,
that good or bad, you have to obey. And I'm saying bad, you
don't. Any judge doesn't have to do bad, if I can prove it's
bad...
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. TURMEL:...and that's what I'm going to do. I understand
the higher courts, what they've said -- that's why these
appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada are going on -- but
I've never had the opportunity to make this application in
full, and, you know, with only a half an hour, there was not
much chance to do a major presentation for such a,
THE COURT: All right.
MR. TURMEL:...I consider, important issue.
THE COURT: Well, I'm going to give you all the time you need
to do that, because I'm going to direct that your arguments
be made to the court in writing, and that the response be in
writing, and therefore you will have ample time in which to
do that.
MR. TURMEL: I'm sorry, you would like these arguments made
in writing?
THE COURT: Yes, I want to hear your submissions in writing.
MR. TURMEL: A factum, for instance?
THE COURT: Call it what you wish. I wish to have your
argument before me made in writing.
MR. TURMEL: Well, it is.
THE COURT: Okay. So that's it?
MR. TURMEL: Yeah.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. TURMEL: I believe, yes.
THE COURT: Then there's no need, is there, to hear you
orally? It's been made.
MR. TURMEL: Except no one's ever explained it before.
THE COURT: That's....
MR. TURMEL: But, yeah, it's in writing.
THE COURT: That's fine, I'll read it. There you've explained
it?
MR. TURMEL: Yes.
THE COURT: As fully as you need to explain it?
MR. TURMEL: No...
THE COURT: Well, then you can....
MR. TURMEL...there's more evidence I want....
THE COURT: Then you can proceed to provide me the remainder
of your argument in writing.
MR. TURMEL: All right. Okay.
THE COURT: All right? That'll give you.... You're
complaining that you only got a half an hour before Justice
MacLeod. I'm giving you lots of time to do it.
MR. TURMEL: Okay. Well, then, would you....
THE COURT: Okay. But on the next occasion...
MR. TURMEL: Yes.
THE COURT:...which I'll stipulate, I'll want to have your
full argument before me in writing. I will not need to hear
from you orally because it will have been made in writing.
Right? And then...
MR. TURMEL: The motion to quash.
THE COURT:..the Crown will have responded in writing.
MR. TURMEL: The motion to quash the charge.
THE COURT: The motion to quash. That's what you're arguing
about...
MR. TURMEL: Yes.
THE COURT:...right now, isn't it?
MR. TURMEL: Yes. So, you want a factum for the motion to
quash?
THE COURT: Well, as I say, you can call it whatever you
wish...
MR. TURMEL: Completely in writing.
THE COURT:...call it argument, call it factum, call it
some....
MR. TURMEL: Okay.
THE COURT: You know?
MR. TURMEL: Is there any time in particular? T
HE COURT: Well, I'll hear from you about time, and I'll hear
from Miss Ratsoy, as well. I haven't heard from her yet.
Miss Ratsoy?
MS. RATSOY: Well, Your Honour, clearly, if you want
submissions in writing, I'll need to receive Mr. Turmel's...
THE COURT: Absolutely.
MS. RATSOY:...complete submissions first, and then I will...
THE COURT: Yeah.
MS. RATSOY:...certainly follow any direction Your Honour
imposes.
THE COURT: Okay, I propose to give Mr. Turmel 30 days within
which to file his written argument, I propose to give the
Crown 30 days to respond, and I propose to give Mr. Turmel,
after that, 15 further days to reply to the Crown's answer.
Anything wrong with that? Anybody...
MS. RATSOY: That would be fine.
THE COURT:...want more time, less time?
MR. TURMEL: Thank you, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Okay. I consider myself seized of the matter, so
this is not going to be a question of this going off before
another judge, and so I would propose....What's today?
What's the date?
COURTROOM CLERK: The 15th of December.
THE COURT: Fifteenth. That we.... Mr. Turmel, I'm directing
you to have your arguments filed with the court, with a copy
filed on Miss Ratsoy, or the Federal Crown, no later than
midnight on Sunday, the 15th of January. Miss Ratsoy will
have her argument filed before me.... Is the 13th of
February too early, Miss Ratsoy?
MS. RATSOY: That's fine, Your Honour.
THE COURT: And Mr. Turmel will have his reply to the Crown's
answer filed before midnight the 26th of February, and I
will render a decision, once all the material is before me,
on Friday, March 10th.
COURTROOM CLERK: Would you like that in - in number....
THE COURT: Courtroom seven -- pro forma, because I don't
know yet which court I'm going to be in. Ten o'clock.
COURTROOM CLERK: Ten a.m.? Okay, and then to....
THE COURT: Yeah. Now, we could proceed to hear the evidence.
Normally we wouldn't, but, for expediency's sake, I'm
prepared, despite the reservation of my ruling on quashing,
if there is agreement, to hear the evidence now so as not to
inconvenience the witnesses unduly. But if there are
objections to that, then we'll fix a date to hear the
evidence at a later time.
MS. RATSOY: Crown's prepared to call the evidence, Your
Honour.
THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Turmel?
MR. TURMEL: I have no objection, Your Honour, and I'd point
out there's an agreed statement of facts, so that there may
not be much evidence necessary.
MS. RATSOY: There isn't, actually, an agreed statement of
facts, but I guess Mr. Turmel may be making a lot of
admissions in the course of the evidence.
THE COURT: Well, why don't you...
MR. TURMEL: I already gave....
THE COURT:...state what you think the witnesses would say
and we'll see if Mr. Turmel agrees with that and whether....
Then, of course, he'll be entitled to call evidence. And I
will certainly do nothing with that evidence until such time
as I've ruled on the issue before me. And it may very well
be that the facts are not disputed -- that this is not a
factual case, but, rather, a legal one involving the merits
of the arguments advanced by Mr. Turmel. So, if you wish at
this point in time to relate facts to the court, Miss
Ratsoy, I'll ask Mr. Turmel whether or not he agrees with
those facts, and but for the argument he makes, whether it
would justify a finding of guilt.
MS. RATSOY: Yes, Your Honour, I can do that.
THE COURT: Can we proceed that way?
MS. RATSOY Yes.
THE COURT: Is that okay with you, Mr. Turmel?
MR. TURMEL Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Thank you. Listen carefully, then, and I'll be
asking you to comment on the facts read in by the Crown
attorney, or if you wish any qualification to those facts.
MS. RATSOY: On the 14th of May, 2003, a two-page document,
single-spaced, was sent by fax by John Turmel to the
Department of Justice offices in Toronto. Is that admitted,
sir?
MR. TURMEL: Yes.
MS. RATSOY: This document was subsequently forwarded to the
Department of Justice Ottawa office. Sorry, can you just say
'yes' for the record?
MR. TURMEL: I don't know, but I'll presume it's how you got
it, yes.
MS. RATSOY: That's true. The....
THE COURT: Do you wish to file that document...
MS. RATSOY: I do wish to file a copy...
THE COURT:...as an exhibit?
MS. RATSOY:...Your Honour. I won't file the original at this
point.
THE COURT: Have you seen.... That's the original?
MS. RATSOY: This isn't the original.
THE COURT: It is not. Would you have a look at it, Mr.
Turmel, make sure it's the copy that you're....
MR. TURMEL: Okay. Yes, it looks right.
THE COURT: Thank you. Exhibit 1.
COURTROOM CLERK: Thank you.
EXHIBIT NUMBER 1: Copy of two-page document forwarded by Mr.
Turmel to Department of Justice in Toronto on May 14, 2003 -
produced and marked.
THE COURT: The general purport of that document, Miss
Ratsoy?
MS. RATSOY: In this document, Mr. Turmel stated his belief
that all of the marijuana laws in Canada were dead, and
stated his intention. And I'm going to read a paragraph
here: "I will pick up my store of seven pounds of marijuana
and...."
THE COURT: Where are you reading this from? The first or
second page?
MS. RATSOY: The very bottom of the first page...
THE COURT: Thank you.
MS. RATSOY:...going on to the second page.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. RATSOY: "I will pick up my store of seven pounds of
marijuana and take it to Parliament Hill to openly smoke a
joint as M.P.'s enter and dare the government to prosecute
me under a now dead law. Then I will be leaving a pound at
the door of Parliament for their inspection, leaving a
second pound at the Prime Minister's office (it could help
him quit alcohol). Then I will go down to the Supreme Court
of Canada on Wellington Street to drop off a third pound,
then across the street to drop off a fourth pound at your
Attorney General's office, then I'll be going down Elgin
Street to the Ontario Provincial Courthouse and drop off a
fifth pound, then off down Elgin to the Ottawa Police
Station where I will drop off my sixth pound -- of course,
if I get off Parliament Hill." [As read]
THE COURT: It can hardly be said that Mr. Turmel was making
it difficult for the prosecution and the police enforcement
authorities -- that's strictly an editorial comment.
MS. RATSOY: The evidence of Officer Dan Roy, R-O-Y, of the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police, would be that he approached
Mr. Turmel standing on Parliament Hill.
THE COURT: On which date?
MS. RATSOY: On May....
THE COURT: Can I see the Information?
COURTROOM CLERK: Yes.
MS. RATSOY: May 14th...
THE COURT: On May 14th, yes.
MS. RATSOY:...2003. Officer Roy approached Mr. Turmel near
the Chamber of Communes entrance, which I understand is the
entrance normally used by the Prime Minister. Mr. Turmel was
seen to be holding a bag of what appeared to be marijuana
and had a blue dufflebag at his feet. Mr. Turmel was
arrested by Constable Cormie, C-0-R-M-I-E, of the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police. The blue bag was seized and found
to contain six further clear plastic ziplock bags containing
what appeared to be marijuana. He was taken into police
custody, was very cooperative, taken to 'A' Division of the
R.C.M.P. on McArthur, where he was interviewed by Officers
Paul des Coteaux, D-E-S C-O-T-E-A-U-X, and Robert Cloutier,
C-L-O-U-T-I-E-R, of 'A' Division, Narcotics Section. That
interview was audio-taped and videotaped. I understand, Mr.
Turmel, you're willing to admit the nature of the
substance...
MR. TURMEL: Marijuana.
MS. RATSOY:...was marijuana?
MR. TURMEL: Yes, it was real....
THE COURT: Was it, in any event, analyzed?
MS. RATSOY: It was, Your Honour, and I'll submit six
Certificates of Analysis. I'm sorry, seven. I take it a
sample was taken from each of the seven bags seized from Mr.
Turmel.
THE COURT: I'm going to just proceed, Mr. Turmel, to say
this is admitted in evidence as an exhibit unless you tell
me, "No, no, don't do..."
MR. TURMEL: Yes.
THE COURT: "...that yet, because I...."
MR. TURMEL: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay, so that'll be Exhibit 2, as a joint
exhibit, all of the certificates.
EXHIBIT NUMBER 2: Seven Certificates of Analysis -produced
and marked.
THE COURT: Thank you. Go ahead.
MS. RATSOY: At the time of his arrest, Mr. Turmel was
advised that he would be charged with possession of
marijuana for the purpose of trafficking. He was read his
rights to counsel both at the time of his arrest and at the
outset of his interview at *A' Division, and he indicated
that he would be representing himself. If Mr. Turmel doesn't
object, I'll file a photograph...
MR. TURMEL: Sure.
MS. RATSOY:...of the marijuana and the bag seized.
THE COURT: Exhibit 3.
COURTROOM CLERK: Thank you.
EXHIBIT NUMBER 3; Photograph of marijuana and bag - produced
and marked.
MS. RATSOY: Those are the facts the Crown would be relying
on, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Thank you. Are those facts formally admitted, Mr.
Turmel?
MR. TURMEL: Yes, they are, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Thank you. Now, Mr. Turmel, do you wish to call
viva voce evidence in your defence?
MR. TURMEL: Well, I'd like to do that later, not now. I
mean, I don't mind the Crown's facts going in, but I would
rather not respond to it at this point in time, and if I
can, I'd wait to see if the charge is going to go through
after the application to quash.
THE COURT: That's the problem. Of course, I can go through
with the application to quash, but it would've been
preferable to have a complete record of all of the case
before me. The Crown, here, has a prima facie case, but
you're entitled to call evidence. Not argument, now. The
argument, I'll hear, we've said....
MR. TURMEL: Well, then, I have no evidence. I'll have no
evidence to call, Your Honour.
THE COURT: I mean evidence, for example, to show that you
were not in possession, evidence to show that this was not
marijuana, any defence evidence....
MR. TURMEL: No, nothing like that at all. Nothing like that
at all.
THE COURT: And can you tell me, just so I can gauge
properly, what it is that you might.... And I'm not saying
that I'm forcing you if you say, "I will call that
evidence." I'll leave that open, if that's your desire. But,
what would be the nature of the evidence that you would
think of calling if you did call evidence?
MR. TURMEL: I wouldn't have any evidence to call with
respect to those facts at all.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. TURMEL: It would be strictly to do with the law, and if
the law's still alive, I'm in big trouble.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. TURMEL: That's my point. So, there are going to be
no.... I would probably, if the law was judged alive, maybe
even plead guilty, but I've stood mute. But, I just mean
there's no defence to offer, and I'm not going to challenge
any of the facts.
THE COURT: And that was your point.
MR. TURMEL: Yes.
THE COURT: Your point, indeed, was to make a clear and
patent case...
MR. TURMEL: Yes.
THE COURT:...so that the authorities would prosecute, so
that then...
MR. TURMEL: Yes.
THE COURT:...you would have an opportunity to challenge the
legislation...
MR. TURMEL: Yes, Your Honour.
THE COURT:...and that this was...
MR. TURMEL: That's right.
THE COURT:...your desire. Fine. So I'll assume, then, that
on the basis of what you say, that the case is before me...
MR. TURMEL: Yes.
THE COURT:...on the facts.
MR. TURMEL: Yes.
THE COURT: And that there -
MR. TURMEL: There's nothing else coming.
THE COURT: - there's no other evidence to be called on the
issue. Obviously, I'm going to refrain from rendering a
decision on guilt or innocence until such time as I have
heard fully the arguments on all sides so that I can make a
decision -- which may be appealed by one side or the other,
but at least there'll be a full and formal record before any
appellate or reviewing tribunal in order to assess the worth
of my own judgment, and then that....And as I say, from
either side. I'm not prejudging the issue in any way. Thank
you.
MS. RATSOY:  Your Honour, I'm sorry, there's just -
there's.... Given everything that's unfolded in this case,
there's one further bit of evidence that should be on the
record, and that is the total weight of the marijuana was -
THE COURT: Oh, yes, yes, that's right.
MS. RATSOY: - was three point.... I believe it's 3.2
kilograms.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. TURMEL: Three point three (3.3).
MS. RATSOY: Three point two seven seven (3.277), I believe.
THE COURT: We're not going to quibble about.23? It was....
MR. TURMEL: Two seven seven (.277) is .3, if you know your -
if you know how to round up.
THE COURT: If you know how to round up. No, and you could
round it up, I'm sure. It could be rounded up, I suppose, as
either zero or five, but....
MR. TURMEL: I've always said 3.3 in all my writings for the
past three years, just for consistency's sake.
THE COURT: Yeah. In any event, it's in excess of - nobody's
disputing that this is in excess of three kilos, and that's
one of your arguments, and the Crown doesn't dispute that
the quantity here, whatever it is precisely, is in excess of
three kilos.
MS. RATSOY: That's correct, Your Honour.
THE COURT: That's admitted and not controversial. Fine.
Well, thank you very much. I think this has been productive.
At least we can tell the witnesses that they need not wait
any further and they can go home. And, I've already set out
the schedule. Madam Monitor, I'll ask you for a transcript
of everything that was said this morning. Because I gather
Mr. Turmel is impecunious, I think the Province should
undertake the cost of providing him with a transcript, and a
transcript for the Crown, and obviously, a transcript for
me, as well.
COURT REPORTER: Yes, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Okay? I presume that's the case. I don't mean to
be pejorative. That's all. Next matter?
MS. RATSOY: Thank you, Your Honour.
COURTROOM CLERK: The return date...
MR. TURMEL: Thank you.
COURTROOM CLERK:...is March 10th.
THE COURT: Yes, March 10th, nine o'clock, courtroom seven,
pro forma.  By that, I mean, Mr. Turmel, that I don't know
exactly which physical courtroom...
MR. TURMEL: Yes.
THE COURT:...I'll be in.
MR. TURMEL: Nine o'clock?
THE COURT: At nine, yeah.
COURTROOM CLERK: Ten.
THE COURT: No, at....
COURTROOM CLERK: Your Honour, nine o'clock, or ten?
THE COURT: Oh, nine, yeah.
COURTROOM CLERK: Okay.
THE COURT: Yeah, this is a chambers day. I'm on a very
long...
COURTROOM CLERK: Sure.
THE COURT:...case at that time -- I think -- hold on --
which is going to go months. Yes, I have a couple of matters
before me at nine o'clock for sentence...
COURTROOM CLERK: Okay.
THE COURT:...and we'll deal with that immediately after.
COURTROOM CLERK: Okay, I'll write nine.
THE COURT: Nine o'clock, please. Thank you.

JCT: I already published my Memorandum and the Crown's
written submissions and there only remain my Reply that will
be published tomorrow.

Another thanks to Laurie for scanning out the text for us.

--
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 posted this at
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/medpot/files/daren5tr.txt

Information No. 03-20030
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
V.
JOHN C. TURMEL
***
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R. BELANGER
on December 15, 2005, at Ottawa, Ontario
CHARGE: s.5(2) C.D.S.A.
APPEARANCES: Ms. A. Ratsoy  Counsel for the Federal Crown
Mr. J. Turmel acting on his own behalf

1. Table of Contents
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Submissions on Application...........Pages 1 to 19
Ruling on Application................Pages 20 to 23
Arraignment..........................Page 24
***********
NO WITNESSES CALLED
***********
EXHIBITS
Number Description Page
1 Copy of two-page document forwarded by Mr. Turmel to
Department of Justice in Toronto on May 14, 2003
2 Seven Certificates of Analysis
3 Photograph of marijuana and bag
***********
Transcript requested:  December 15, 2005
Transcript completed: January 17, 2006
Parties notified: January 20, 2006

MS. RATSOY: The priority would be the Turmel matter, Your
Honour.
THE COURT: Okay.
Can I see the materials before the court, please?
COURTROOM CLERK: Yes, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Okay, just give me a moment as T try to make some
order out of these disparate materials here.
[Brief pause.]
THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Turmel is before the court charged with
an offence dated 14 May, '03, of possessing for the purpose
of trafficking in an amount not exceeding three kilograms of
cannabis marijuana, pursuant to s.5(4) of the Act. Now,
before Mr. Turmel is arraigned, are there preliminary
matters?
MR. TURMEL: Yes, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. TURMEL: I would like to hand in these two documents,
which are the filed notices of appeal I mentioned on Monday,
both of which affect this proceeding. One is a new notice of
appeal for prohibition based on the Krieger decision, and
the other one is a notice for certiorari to remove this case
from this court into Superior Court on the grounds I had
more than three kilograms and should not be....
THE COURT: All right. Well, let's not...
MR. TURMEL: Yeah.
THE COURT:...go too fast here. But, anyway, I want to
just....
THE COURT: You have a notice of prohibition.
MR. TURMEL: Notice of appeal.
THE COURT: Notice of appeal, rather, yeah.
MR. TURMEL: Number 44587.
THE COURT: And then you have a....
MR. TURMEL Appeal number 44588 for certiorari.
THE COURT: Now, these were applications for certiorari and
prohibition that had previously been dismissed, therefore.
MR. TURMEL: On Mon... - on the 12th of November, yes. The
28th of November, sorry.
THE COURT: Now....
MR. TURMEL: Also....
THE COURT: All right, and what are you filing?
MR. TURMEL: The copies of the two notices of appeal. Also, I
mentioned last Monday....
THE COURT: Well, hold on, hold on. I'll let you know when
I've finished reviewing these materials.
[Brief pause.]
THE COURT: Uhm-hm, go ahead.
MR. TURMEL: And I mentioned last week that I was also filing
two applications - three applications in the Supreme Court
of Canada, and I couldn't get into town yesterday on time to
have those documents filed, but they will be filed with the
court later today, and two of the three impinge directly,
again, on this case. One is a challenge to the Hitzig
decision, which Justice MacLeod used to rationalize the
rejection of the....
THE COURT: All right, those applications, for whatever they
stand for, you've not been given leave to appeal by the
Supreme Court?
MR. TURMEL: No, I'm applying....
THE COURT: okay. Well, I'm not going to consider those.
MR. TURMEL: okay.
THE COURT: Those, as far as I'm concerned -- the original
decision, as well as the appellate decision -- stand, and
there has not been leave given, and the simple filing of an
appeal doesn't get you anywhere, I would think, Mr. Turmel.
So, in my consideration of your arguments, I'm going to
leave those applications aside. They are not material in my
view, or germane to the issue before the court, which is
that I should desist from proceeding with the matter this
morning.
MR. TURMEL: And the last point.... Well, because I'm
unrepresented, I understand that I'm not entitled to any
help on the facts of my case, but I am entitled to help on
the law of my case...
THE COURT: Not from me, you're not.
MR. TURMEL:... and so....Well....
THE COURT: I'm not a legal advisor, Mr. Turmel.
MR. TURMEL: I know, but you have to make sure that justice
goes on in your court. And I can't...
THE COURT: That's right.
MR. TURMEL:...advise you on the law, 'cause that's not my
specialty. So, my issue is.... (What) my question boils down
to is: Do I have to file a separate notice of return of the
file on you, Your Honour, so that this proceeding is
suspended pending the appeals in the Court of Appeal?
THE COURT: Darned if I know. You tell me why. I'm not here
to advise you, Mr. Turmel.
MR. TURMEL: Okay. Well, then, I'll hand in the case of
Batchelor, which seems to be the big case relating to
suspensions while appeals are going on, and I would just
refer you to page A12, the last paragraph. So, I'll just
read it out:
Notwithstanding the view taken in Re Holman and Rea that an
inferior court ought to desist as a matter of courtesy when
it is aware of the challenge to its jurisdiction brought
before a superior court, the Manitoba Court of Appeal in
Hannon v. Eisler, a case dealing with custody proceedings,
said speaking through Coyne J.A. (at p. 195) that "as a
general rule I think it can be laid down that the inferior
tribunal is bound to desist on application for prohibition
in the Queen's Bench and while an appeal is pending in the
Court of Appeal from a decision thereon if the tribunal is
aware of [the] application or appeal because, among other
reasons, such an appeal is a step in the cause or matter in
which it is taken': Court of Appeal Rule 1; and the cause or
matter is not complete after the step, if undertaken, is
completed".
So, both these notices of appeal in the Court of Appeal
filed yesterday do impinge upon the jurisdiction of this
court: One, on the basis that the law is no longer valid;
two, on the basis that this court doesn't have jurisdiction
when the amount of the matter is more than three keys, and
on the basis that those two appeals have been filed and will
be proceeded with diligently. I would therefore ask....
THE COURT: Well, just on that last point. The allegation is
that you possessed an amount not exceeding three kilograms.
MR. TURMEL: But the evidence shows I had more than three
kilograms.
THE COURT: Well, then I have to hear the evidence, don't I?

JCT: All the judges are surprised to find out I had more
than 3Kg and was not given an election.

MR. TURMEL: Well, the Crown has already admitted it in all
previous pre-plea applica....
THE COURT: Well, that may be so. Is that common ground?
MS. RATSOY: Your Honour, Mr. Turmel has had an issue since
the beginning of this trial with the Crown proceeding on a
charge of less than three kilograms, although the amount was
greater than three kilograms and....
THE COURT: So, there's an admission that it exceeded.
MS. RATSOY: Yes, there is.
THE COURT: Okay, that's fine. That's all I wanted to....

JCT: The Courts are all stunned to find out they have no
jurisdiction over me but then proceed.

MR. TURMEL: And so that, basically, is the basis for the
certiorari motion, that I should have been given an
election, and I'm proceeding on that one. But the
prohibition, of course, is based on the newly-discovered
Krieger decision at the Supreme Court of Canada. So, I would
only ask that on the basis....
Again, the Crown can always move to have those appeals
quashed if they  feel that there's some sort of dilatory
reason for them. The truth is, they are substantive matters
which have been dealt with properly in the past, and I would
therefore ask this court for an adjournment up until the
summertime to give the applications in the Court of Appeal a
chance to mend their way and see if I can get these
proceedings removed or prohibited. Thank you very much.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. TURMEL: Oh, the last point I was making. In the old
days, there was a notice to return file that was filed and
given to the judge, which read -- and that's out of the
Batchelor case again: "By virtue of Rule 7 Part I of the
Rules Respecting Criminal Proceedings of the Supreme Court
of Ontario, you are..." -- to the judge -- "...upon
receiving this notice, to return forthwith to the
Registrar's Office..." -- at the Court of Appeal for
Ontario in Ontario -- "...the Orders herein referred to,
together with the information, exhibits and other papers or
documents touching the matter, as fully and as entirely as
they remain in your custody, together with this notice and
the certificate prescribed in the said Rule." My only
question is: Is there still a similar such form that I have
to fill out which will more officially suspend your
jurisdiction while these two appeals go on above?
THE COURT: I have no idea.
MR. TURMEL: Okay.
THE COURT: All right, Miss Ratsoy, let's start with you
and....
MS. RATSOY: Your Honour, I am prepared to argue the issue of
whether or not the proceedings are suspended because Mr.
Turmel has filed these applications in the Court of Appeal.
It will be my submission that they're not automatically
suspended and it's in the discretion of the court to make
that decision. If Your Honour refers to section 784(1) of
the Criminal Code. In part 26, under extraordinary remedies.
THE COURT: Yes, just give me a moment. Yes.
MS. RATSOY: Section 784(1) says: "An appeal lies to the
court of appeal from a decision granting or refusing the
relief sought in proceedings by way of mandamus, certiorari
or prohibition." That is the situation we are in today. Mr.
Turmel had brought an application for certiorari and
prohibition before Justice MacLeod in the Superior Court
challenging a decision of your brother, Wright J., in this
court. It was dismissed by Madam Justice MacLeod on
November 28th. He has now filed his notices of appeal of her
decision with the Court of Appeal. Your Honour will note --
I have the Martin's Criminal Code -- the first case cited in
the annotated version is a case called Boutin, from....
THE COURT: I don't have Martin's, so.... I've got
Tremear's.
MS. RATSOY: I have a copy for Your Honour and a case for Mr.
Turmel.
MR. TURMEL: Thank you.
THE COURT: Yeah.
MS. RATSOY: Boutin says that although this section, section
784, gives an accused a right to appeal from dismissal of an
application for certiorari, the accused does not have a
right to a stay of the trial proceedings pending the appeal.
The power to grant a stay is discretionary, the test being
whether the accused can show the existence of a serious
question: That unless the stay were granted, he would suffer
irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favours
granting the stay. In that decision from the Quebec Court of
Appeal, leave was granted to the Supreme Court of Canada and
- I'm sorry, leave to appeal was refused by the Supreme
Court of Canada. So, the case stands. The Batchelor decision
which Mr. Turmel relies on, in my submission, Your Honour,
relates only to what happens to the proceeding when it goes
from the inferior court to the superior court. That was the
precise circumstances that occurred in Batchelor. Batchelor
is also a 1978 case, and Boutin is a more recent decision of
1990. The Batchelor case talks about the jurisdiction of the
inferior court being automatically suspended while the
matter is heard by the superior court, it doesn't speak to
what happens when the superior court has dismissed the
application.
THE COURT: What case says that? Batchelor, you say?
MS. RATSOY: The case my friend submitted, Batchelor, yes.
THE COURT: I'm sorry, I thought that the passage read out by
Mr. Turmel was referring to...
MR. TURMEL: Court of Appeal.
THE COURT:...appeal and while an appeal is pending in the
Court of Appeal from a decision thereon. Just I thought that
the court addressed that issue squarely.
MS. RATSOY: In my submission, it doesn't, Your Honour. First
of all, the passage that Mr. Turmel read from is not a
criminal case, and I would ask Your Honour to review the
Boutin case.
THE COURT: No, no, I don't disagree that I should look at
Boutin, Miss Ratsoy. That's fine, but...
MS. RATSOY: The....
THE COURT:...I'm just saying that it did appear to me that
the Batchelor case did specifically comment not just on
while a matter is outstanding before a superior court in
relation to a prerogative writ, but also during any appeal
period.
MS. RATSOY: In my submission, it doesn't. The very
particular quote read out by Mr. Turmel does; the balance of
the decision addresses squarely the facts in that case,
which were the first stage of this application, an
application for certiorari being taken to the superior
court, and whether or not that stays the jurisdiction of the
inferior court. And quite clearly, it does.
THE COURT: Well, then, what does the "and while an appeal is
pending" mean? I'm sorry, I grant you I may have to look at
the case in greater detail, but it seems to be a pretty
stark pronouncement, without equivocation or exception.
MS. RATSOY: In my submission, Your Honour, there's a very
big exception, and it's contained in the Boutin case,
and....
THE COURT: Okay, that's fine. I don't deny I'll have to look
at Boutin, okay; and the fact that the Supreme Court of
Canada refused leave in Boutin. I don't deny that. All I'm
saying to you is, are you alleging that Batchelor stands for
a proposition different than that  Mr. Turmel
argues?
MS. RATSOY: Yes, I am. I'm saying the Batchelor decision
relates specifically to what happens to the proceedings when
the application is filed with the superior court, and that
this comment that he has read, which contains a child
custody case, not a criminal matter, it is not what would
govern the situation we have. The Boutin case would govern
the situation we have.
THE COURT: Well, to begin with, I simply point this out, as
I continue hearing from you, that I am bound by obiter -- if
your argument is that this is obiter. Mr. Justice Cory, in a
decision the name of which I forget, but which is easily
found, has quite clearly stated that the inferior courts are
bound by obiter of the Supreme Court of Canada. Secondly, I
would like to know why there is a distinction to be drawn
between a criminal case and a civil case. The principle
seems to be that while there is an application for
prerogative remedies ongoing at the appellate level, that
the course of jurisdiction is suspended. The Supreme Court
of Canada did not, it would seem to me in Batchelor, make a
distinction between criminal and civil cases. It may, but
I'd like you to point it out to me if it does make that
distinction, or if any other jurisprudence makes that
distinction. Inferior courts are inferior courts, inferior
to the Supreme Court of Canada and the Ontario Court of
Appeal, or any superior court sitting in appeal -- or,
indeed, this court sitting in appeal of Provincial Offences
decisions.
MS. RATSOY: Your Honour, I believe the Boutin case does
address that point.
THE COURT: But I don't have any problem with having a good
look at Boutin, I'm just asking you whether Batchelor does
make a distinction between criminal and civil cases. I will,
I promise you, have a look at Boutin. I'm just asking you at
this point whether Batchelor makes that distinction, either
in its main reasons or in obiter.
MS. RATSOY: Your Honour, I can't answer that question.
Perhaps my friend can answer it. This is a case....
THE COURT: Well, I'm not asking Mr. Tunnel -- he's asserted
it -- I'm asking you. In any event, you say Boutin, (which)
is a Quebec Court of Appeal decision, but sustained by the
Supreme Court of Canada, somehow changes the picture, and
I'll have a good look at that. In any event, is there any
issue that the applications for certiorari and for
prohibition apply to this case?
MS. RATSOY: No, they do apply to this case...
THE COURT: Okay, fair enough.
MS. RATSOY:...but I have at least one further submission to
make about...
THE COURT: And I'll hear from you.
MS. RATSOY:...the application.
THE COURT: Yeah. Yes, go ahead.
MS. RATSOY: Your Honour, the applications, although they
were heard by Madam Justice MacLeod, are not, in my view,
what one could call proper applications for certiorari and
prohibition. At no point in his materials before the Court
of Appeal or in the materials filed with Madam Justice
MacLeod does he identify and argue about the error committed
by the inferior court, and, as Your Honour knows, it is not
every error made by a Provincial Court judge which can be
the basis of an application for certiorari or prohibition.
They are extraordinary remedies and they are based on
jurisdictional arguments. The Provincial Court judge has to
have lost jurisdiction by committing a specific kind of
error. Nowhere in his materials or in his applications has
Mr. Turmel specified what that error is, and in my
submission, this is not a bona fide application for
certiorari or prohibition. There is no proper substance to
it. The decision made by Justice Wright that....
THE COURT: Can we just turn, before going to that, to....
Justice MacLeod, you say? Have we got a transcript of her
decision?
MS. RATSOY: I have a copy of her ruling, Your Honour, and I
have a transcript of Justice Wright's decision. I am handing
to Your Honour Justice MacLeod's endorsement on the
applications for prohibition and for certiorari.
THE COURT: Thank you.
[Brief pause.]
THE COURT: Yes? Is that the extent of it, Miss Ratsoy? Are
these your arguments?
MS. RATSOY: Yes, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Okay. I'm sorry, were you going to give me
Justice Wright's decision?
MS. RATSOY: I do have a transcript of Justice Wright's
decision, yes.
THE COURT: Thank you. And his ruling's at page 22, then, eh?
[Brief pause.]
THE COURT: Okay. Reply?
MR. TURMEL: Well, as to the appropriateness of the remedies.
And I can only say that the prohibition, the word
'prohibition' itself -- to prohibit the court from pursuing
that charge -- that count in the indictment, inherently
explains the challenge to the court's jurisdiction.
THE COURT: Well, Miss Ratsoy states that an application for
extraordinary remedy must have as its seminal event an error
by an inferior court.
MR. TURMEL: And that was, of course, in believing that the
law was still alive, yes, at....
THE COURT: No, no, no, hold on. The matter has not been
adjudicated upon, and what -
MR. TURMEL: Well, the first prohibition....
THE COURT: - what error.... If.... To begin with, is her
statement of the law accurate, that seminal to an
application for prerogative remedy must be an error
committed by an inferior court? Is that right or wrong?
MR. TURMEL: Well, the.... Well, perhaps, perhaps not. I'm
not sure. What I'm going to say is that in this case, the
court where.... I went to the Superior Court to explain that
the Krieger decision at the Supreme Court of Canada struck
down section 7. It didn't make the news; nobody knows about
it. I brought it up to the court's attention, and the court
ruled that it didn't....
THE COURT: Yeah. Yeah, but you're not - you're not moving to
set aside on the basis of certiorari or mandamus Justice
MacLeod's order, you appeal that order. That's fine. All I'm
saying to you is that I want you.... If Miss Ratsoy's
statement about the availability of extraordinary remedies
is correct, what error has the inferior court -- that is,
this court -- committed?
MR. TURMEL: Proceeding under a statute that has been deemed
repealed by the Supreme Court of Canada. And that's what I
told Justice MacLeod and she dismissed it, said she was
bound by the Hitzig decision, and therefore I've appealed.
So, the error is proceeding under an invalid statute. That
was the claim why the lower courts had no jurisdiction, the
statute's invalid...
THE COURT: Of course, the...
MR. TURMEL:...and she dealt with it.
THE COURT:...court hasn't proceeded yet.
MR. TURMEL: Well, it wants to. I'm still here, I'm being
dragged before its jurisdiction on a regular basis, so I'm
trying to prohibit that from happening. And that is the
error; the error is right on the face of the indictment:
section 7, prohibition of marijuana cultivation, and section
4, the underpinnings for the possession offences, have been
deemed invalid by the courts, and I have to prove that
point. I raised it before the judge to prohibit the
proceedings below; she said no; so now, again, I go above.
So, the error below is to proceed on an invalid statute. And
I'd remind the court....
THE COURT: Well, why is this not an argument that you make
before the trial court?
MR. TURMEL: That it's an invalid statute?
THE COURT: Yeah.
MR. TURMEL: Well, I will, but why should I have to come
before a trial court when I can get it prohibited? And I
tried.
THE COURT: Because the law is that it is much preferable to
have issues litigated and then appealed, as opposed to
creating a roundabout track which prevents issues from being
heard on their merits. There is a strong presumption in law
and in jurisprudence that cases, if at all possible, should
be heard on their merits. If you have an argument about the
validity of legislation, then the normal manner in which to
proceed is to have the trial court pronounce on the validity
of that legislation -- the trial court has jurisdiction --
and to hear the jurisdictional arguments.
MS. RAT80Y: Your Honour, may I address this point, because I
think I can bring some clarification to it?
THE COURT: Yeah.
MS. RATSOY: This matter has been fully argued in this case.
The first application brought by Mr. Turmel was just what he
has said, that there is no valid prohibition against any
marijuana offence because section 4(1) was found for a time
to be invalid. That argument has gone all the way to the
Court of Appeal, and I'll hand Your Honour the Court of
Appeal's decision on that.
THE COURT: In this case?
MS. RATSOY: Yes. It was ruled on first by...
THE COURT: By whom?
MS. RATSOY:...Madam Justice Aitken in the Superior Court,
and Mr. Turmel appealed it to the Court of Appeal.
THE COURT: Well, yeah, but were the facts ever heard in the
Provincial Court?
MS. RATSOY: No, they were not.
THE COURT: Well, that's what I'm saying. It may have been
litigated elsewhere, but, I mean, that's.... I'm just asking
whether that circuitous route is the appropriate forum. Why
not deal with the issue head-on, file a notice of
constitutional question in this court and have the matter
heard and determined in this court, and then appeal? What's
wrong with that?
MS. RATSOY: It's not what's wrong with it, it's that Mr.
Turmel chose to deal with it again...
THE COURT: Well, I understand that.
MS. RATSOY:...by way of bringing a prerogative writ, and...
THE COURT: Yeah.
MS. RATSOY:...the Court of Appeal comments on that, as well.
The whole issue has been addressed and dealt with.
MR. TURMEL: Well, in that decision, the Court of Appeal said
that despite the questions about jurisdiction, it was
important enough that they were going to deal with it
regardless. This issue is important enough. It led to the
dropping of 4,000 charges across the country. Thousands of
mistakes had been made because the Crown would not admit the
law was dead and invalid. The same thing is happening again.
Now, why not head-on? There are two issues here: I have my
notice of constitutional question to declare the law bad,
but I don't want to have to go through the whole long
process of working to declare the law bad when Terry Parker
did that one, Krieger did that one. Now I'm supposed to do
it again? I'm saying, "Whoa, whoa!" They've won; they
haven't collected yet. They haven't had the law declared
officially invalid. It was suspended, each time one year,
and after the suspensions, the Crown argued, "Oh, it still
hasn't been unsuspended, it's still alive." So, before I
want to take on the chore of proving that the law is bad
constitutionally again, I want to establish it's dead; it's
been killed by the two sick guys who won and who haven't
collected the pot yet.
THE COURT: Well, you may like to do it that way, but there
is a legal structure and a framework within which we
operate. I have.... There's a narrow question before me. The
narrow question is, is my jurisdiction ousted by an
application for prerogative writ which is under appeal?
That's the narrow issue. I'm not going to get into why
things are structured in a particular way and why you should
have to argue in a manner which you think is more efficient.
MR. TURMEL: Well, but she can....
THE COURT: That's not the point.
MR. TURMEL: She can move to quash the thing at the...
THE COURT: That's not the point.
MR. TURMEL:...Court of Appeal in a week. If it's that weak
and it's that non-argumentative, it can be gone in a week.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, I....
MR. TURMEL: So...
THE COURT: That's fine.
MR. TURMEL:...I'm saying, yes, your jurisdiction is
suspended.
THE COURT: That's what you say.
MR. TURMEL:...she should be bringing her arguments to the
higher court and not here.
THE COURT: Thank you. I'll consider the submissions which
were made to me, and I'll render my decision as soon as I've
done that. We'll take a break for that purpose. Thank you.
COURTROOM CLERK: Thank you. Order, all rise, please? The
court is now in recess. Thank you.
R E C E S S

[continued...


--
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

THE COURT: Okay, well I will deal with that question
separately. I want to hear if Mr. Cornelssen has any
argument in response. Mr. Cornelssen, I want to caution you.
I do not need to hear your argument again. I simply want to
hear your response to anything that arose as a consequence
of what Ms. Ozem had to say that you have not had a chance
to deal with before,
THE ACCUSED: However, it'll be tough to do that, madam. One
point that she made was that Ontario Courts do not have an
influence on what happens in -- here in Alberta and yet it's
our position that when a court acts constitutionally in
striking down a bad law and that is upheld by the Court of
Appeal of that province then, yes, that should be followed.
THE COURT: It should be?

JCT: Justice Read has forgotten her stare decisis. And it
only took one reading of the new doctrine of non-stare
decisis.

THE ACCUSED: It sho -- it should apply across the country if
it's held up by the -- by the Court of Appeal, so that would
apply in the Krieger case in other places and in the Parker
appeal case in -- in Alberta. And as proof of that, the
Crown dropped charges against 4,000 people when this law was
considered to be invalid.

JCT: How can the judge ignore that point?

What they should have done, they should also have expunged
the criminal records of another 100,000 people that were
convicted during that period, but they did drop the charges
against 4,000 people and it was all across country, here in
Alberta too.

JCT: So she's made aware of the Parker Scandal that though
they dropped last 4000 invalid charges, they did not correct
the mistakes for the first 100,0000 invalid convictions.

Now, they wouldn't have done that just out of kindness, they
must have done it because they thought that they were
required to do it.
Ms. Ozem makes the point that the MMAR corrected the
deficiency and yet it was proven that it did not, which was
why the 4,000 cases were dropped.

JCT: How logical. I wonder how the lady judge's brain was
processing this logic? We know they're mostly rejects from
math class.

Now, the Hitzig case apparently heals the MMAR by cutting
off five of the cancers that makes it unconstitutional, and
it seems to me though that that's like trying to cure a dead
person.

JCT: Resurrecting is the word. Cure a live person.

Because if the law has been declared dead because they did
not change the law within the period of the time of the
Parker case, it was so ruled by the Court of Appeal, that
then it has to be re-enacted before it can be cured. Because
otherwise, it's like amputating body parts off a dead body,
that doesn't bring the body back to life. And even if it
did, two months after they did that, Health Canada added
back two of the cancers so it would have been
unconstitutional again even if it had been deemed
constitutional for that period. Ms. Ozem makes several
references to my -- my coach and mentor in this matter
because as I mentioned earlier, my original intention was a
constitutional challenge on energy. To Mr. John Turmel that
I would introduce to the Court as being present, and if we
get together again or even for this afternoon if it's
possible if we have 20 minutes, I would ask permission of
the Court as Mr. Turmel is a friend of the Court could act
as my agent and respond to what Ms. Ozem has raised.
Now, if that's not possible, this is why I wanted to
simplify things in the beginning, go with Section 7(1) in
Alberta since stare decisis has been mentioned by Ms. Ozem.
And to me it seems to be very simple, that a Judge in
Alberta is required to follow the ruling of the Appeal Court
of Appeal, of the higher Court of Alberta.

JCT: Stare decisis about which the judge as already been
informed she must forget everything she ever knew.

And the higher Court of Alberta in their written decision
have upheld Judge Acton's order that 7(1) is struck down and
they make no mention whatsoever of the stay being extended.

JCT: Won't they even obey their own highest court?

And I would think that before this matter is solved, it's
going to have to go back up again in front of the Court of
Appeal so we can see what their thinking really is because
there seems to be a great deal of confusion about that. They
did not write down anything about the stay still being in
effect.
So to me it would seem that if they could produce an order
stating that the -- that this happened the way that it was
said that it would happen, or else it should go back to the
Court of Appeal under stare decisis and that this Court
should decide to go on what is written and a written
memorandum, rather than any affidavits which contained
mistakes in the original affidavit which are not from
disinterested parties. Should rather go with the memorandum
of the three Judges of the Court of Appeal, that the law is
struck down. And if the Crown wishes to appeal it again to
the Court of Appeal, then that would be their choice.
THE COURT: Thank you. Now, the last issue that we need to
deal with is the subpoena to Mr. Iovinelli. Mr. Cornelssen,
may I assume that you still wish to have Mr. Iovinelli
appear.

JCT: Yes, the issues are pretty clear. 1) Should
Parliament's Interpretation Act be ignored because the
Ontario Court of Appeal says to and 2) should stare decisis
be ignored because that's what the Crown and the back-room
boys want.

THE ACCUSED: I believe so, yes, madam.
THE COURT: Okay, tell me why.
THE ACCUSED: Well, because identical mistakes were made in
the affidavit and I don't see how identical mistakes could
be make -- made in the affidavit unless there was collusion
between the witnesses. And since the affidavits come from
the Crown, I would have to think that it really shouldn't be
the position of the Crown to write out affidavits for its
witnesses and say, Here, sign this, this is the way it was.
On March 18th, you made an application, it came down. Now,
I'm not saying that the application wasn't made, but I'm
saying there's no evidence of it. It certainly wasn't made
on March the 18th. Had it been, it would have been an ex --
an explanation for why there wasn't any written thing
because they didn't have time to write it up. If it was made
on December the 4th, then why isn't that extension, why
isn't that most important application of Iovinelli's to have
a non-existent suspension lifted? And I say non-existent
because it was interlocutory and it expired when the appeal
was over. It was functus officio at that time, that the
Judges did not have the power to extend the stay --
THE COURT: I understand your argument --
THE ACCUSED: Yes.
THE COURT: -- but my question is related particularly to Mr.
Iovinelli. Having questioned Mr. Couper, why is it that you
think you still need to question Mr. Iovinelli when, as you
say, the two -- the two affidavits are very similar?
THE ACCUSED: Well, I'm wondering how they're very similar,
unless the witness are coordinated. And it's my
understanding and I get my legal education from, you know,
reading Perry Mason novels. Witnesses -- an affidavit of a
witness, that's what the witnesses saw, that's not what the
Crown says, Here, say this, say this, say this because it
backs their case. And then when they feel, oh, March 18th,
that doesn't look very good, well then we'll have to change
it back to this, and then they both discover the same
mistake at the same time. It just seems like it's not
totally arm's length from that.
And as to whether it's -- it's -- you know, I hate to put
them to the inconvenience, but it's also an inconvenience --
if Mr. Iovinelli is the only person who can apply to have
that suspension lifted if it's still in effect, then I would
like to ask him why he hasn't applied to have it lifted and
thereby, you know, save it for all Canadians, not just for
his client. And if he's doing it only because he'd rather
get them off one at a time and collect a fee every time,
that's, you know, quite disappointing. That's why people
tell lawyer jokes, you know.
So I would like to -- to talk to Mr. Iovinelli and there is
another counsel that was present at the time, and I don't
have the name in front of me right at the moment, but it
seems to me maybe they could shed some light on it. If there
were three counsel there --
THE COURT: Well, there has been no subpoena issued in
respect to any third party, and that issue is not before me
today, I assure you.
THE ACCUSED: Yeah. Now, I would put it this way, I would not
insist upon it, madam, and -- but if the Court feels that
there is valid argument being made here, and that they would
need further convincing as far as the likelihood or the
unlikelihood that this has come down the way that it's been
presented in the affidavits, then we should do it. If they
can see that if it actually happened that way, if the Judges
meant that it be taken seriously, they would have written it
up in the memorandum and they did not write it up in the
memorandum. They make no mention of the suspension still
being in effect. Judge Acton does, Judge O'Leary does, but
the Appeal Court of Appeal do not. It is like it expired
when the appeal expired.
And we have affidavit evidence saying different but we don't
have it in their written record and I believe if they meant
it to be the law of the land, it would be in the written
record. Thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MS. OZEM: Just very briefly. Had the Court of Appeal vacated
the order of O'Leary, J.A. they would have stated it in
their order and they didn't.

JCT: Really? When was the last time a Court of Appeal
vacated an interim order after it had lapsed? I bet that
they would never have done what she says they would have
done. Had the Court vacated the pink elephant, they would
have stated it. So it's still there. Lawyer's logic. Har har
har har.

So Mr. Cornelssen's argument can also be used in the
converse and again, the onus is on him. So in that sense he
still runs into his same problem.
With respect to the production of Iovinelli, again I return
to my original argument that I put before Your Ladyship. It
-- perhaps the wisest option may be to have a ruling
rendered with respect to the substantive arguments put
before the Court. In the event that Your Ladyship agrees
with the Crown's position that by enacting the MMAR within
the time allotment given by Acton, J., that the legislation
is presumptively valid in the absence of a successful
constitutional challenge,

JCT: The Ontario once being considered absent.

then it makes the issue of whether the suspension is extant
moot and we really don't need to get into it, and Mr.
Iovinelli's presence doesn't really need to be determined.
So that may be one issue to deal with on that -- just from a
practical purpose in dealing with it.
With respect to Mr. Cornelssen's argument about collusion
between the witnesses, Mr. Couper was very clear in terms of
his evidence on the stand, that the information contained in
the affidavit had been given by him to me. He received a
draft, he made a change with respect to the date. He
overlooked the date that had been in there, hence the second
affidavit before the Court. But he was extremely clear that
he had had no discussion with Iovinelli before he executed
the affidavit and that he never saw the draft affidavit of
Iovinelli before he executed his affidavit. So there's no
evidence currently before this Court of any collusion
whatsoever.
Mr. Cornelssen says that one of the questions he wants to
ask Mr. Iovinelli is, you know, if this suspension still
exists. You know, why haven't you bothered to lift it.
THE COURT: That would be irrelevant and I would not permit
that question to be asked.
MS. OZEM: Well, we also have the additional problem of
solicitor/client privilege. He's basically trying to get
into conversations that may have taken place between Mr.
Iovinelli and his client, and that may very well be
privileged communications.
THE ACCUSED: I would have one question, Your Honour. As a
stakeholder, and by stakeholder I mean that I've been
arrested under these laws and I face whatever penalties
these laws carry with them, is that could I apply to have
the suspension lifted? Could anyone else other than Grant
Krieger apply to have the suspension lifted?
THE COURT: You made that point in your --in your written
materials as well, I think. I am certainly well aware that
that is your question.
THE ACCUSED: So if that could be included in your decision
when it comes, because although I -- we feel that the
suspension died December the 4th, it was still alive --
THE COURT: You do not need to repeat your argument.
THE ACCUSED: Okay.
THE COURT: I am sometimes a quick study, I get it the first
time.

JCT: Har har har har. Has she really learned to ignore
Parliament and the doctrine of stare decisis that fast?

THE ACCUSED: Okay, thank you.
THE COURT: I am going to have to take some time to make a
decision, I think I can make it today. I am going to ask for
-- I do not want to try to -- I am going to try not to keep
the clerk into overtime, which means that I should try to
give it before 4:30. Madam Clerk, if I was to start at 20
after 4 and if  as a consequence you were a few minutes late
leaving, would that inconvenience you terribly?
THE COURT CLERK: Not at all.
THE COURT: Okay, that would be wonderful. Why do we not
start at 20 past 4, I think it is going to take me that
long.
(ADJOURNMENT)

*Reasons for Judgment

THE COURT: This is an application by the accused Mr.
Cornelssen to quash an Indictment on the basis that it does
not disclose offences known to law.

JCT: Wow, the judge deleted the part where she apologized in
advance for perhaps having trouble reading what she had
written down! Half a dozen witnesses were there and it was
later discussed. We could empathize. Everyone knows how
taking down dictation in a hurry can make reading one's own
writing tough.

In argument, Mr. Cornelssen confined his application only to
the charge laid under Section 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs
and Substances Act, or as it is more commonly known, the
CDSA, and I will therefore confine my decision to that
charge. The decisions at various court levels and in the
course of proceeding in the case of Regina v. Krieger were
argued both by Mr. Cornelssen and counsel for the Crown, and
I will briefly review this case as a consequence.
The Trial Judge in Krieger, Justice Acton, struck down
Section 7(1) of the CDSA in her decision but stayed the
effect of that decision for one year. By Order of Justice
O'Leary of the Court of Appeal of Alberta which he made on
November 28th, 2001, that stay was extended until further
order of the Court of Appeal.

JCT: Will she rule on whether the Final Order is further
enough?

Subsequent to the trial level decision in Krieger, the
Government of Canada passed the Marijuana Medical Access
Regulations which have been referred to by both parties here
as the MMAR. These were originally passed on June 14th, 2001
and have been amended from time to time since then. These
regulations permit possession and, in some cases, production
of marijuana by individuals or, in some limited cases, their
designates who meet the medical criteria established in the
MMAR.
There has been no successful challenge in Alberta of the
MMAR. There has been a challenge or challenges in other
jurisdictions in Canada, notably in Ontario. Ontario
decisions, including Ontario Court of Appeal decisions are
persuasive for me, but not binding upon me as an Alberta
Judge.

JCT: She's forgotten stare decisis with only one telling and
based upon one case that says other provincial appeal courts
aren't bound. Har har har har.

Mr. Cornelssen argues that the effect of Justice Acton's
decision in Krieger was effectively to repeal Section 7(1).
He refers to it as being dead as a consequence. He offers
Superior Court and Provincial Court authority for this
proposition.

JCT: He offered the Interpretation Act and some rulings that
obeyed it.

In my view, these authorities have been overruled by the
Ontario Court of Appeal and are therefore no longer good
law.

JCT: And now she's forgotten her Interpretation Act with
only one telling. Obeying Parliament is "no longer good
law." Har har har.

In my view, a Court has no jurisdiction to repeal a statute.

JCT: A view she just learned since she was told that the
Interpretation Act which says they're repealed should be
ignored.

Only Parliament has that jurisdiction.

JCT: She's got it backwards. Har har har har har.

At most, under Section 52 of the Constitution Act, a Court
can determine that a provision of a statute is of no force
and effect if it offends the Constitution.

JCT: And the Interpretation Act tells judges to interpret
that as a provision to be deemed repealed. And here's a
judge who has already forgotten her instructions from
Parliament on how to interpret the law.

That, in my view, is what Justice Acton did in making her
decision in Krieger. By bringing forward the MMAR, the
Government of Canada altered the scope of Section 7(1).
Therefore, the question now is whether the prohibition
against cultivation of marijuana as modified by the MMAR is
Constitutional. If it is, then Section 7(1) is in force.
That decision has not yet been made in Alberta and is not a
decision that is before me today.

JCT: After all, if stare decisis no longer applies, it has
to be struck down in each and every province, not just
Ontario and there is no decision saying it's bad in Alberta.

I am not hearing a Constitutional challenge to Section 7(1),
I am hearing a motion to quash. Section 7(1), in my view,
was in full force and effect as of the date of the charges
against Mr. Cornelssen and remains so. Therefore, in my
view, the application to quash should be dismissed and I
therefore dismiss it.

JCT: Ugh. No reasoning, just a decision. Makes one want to
vomit to think our justice is in the hands (minds) of such
low-tech illogical people.

Because of the view I take of the effect of the passage of
the MMAR, I need not address the question of whether the
stay remains operational in Mr. Krieger's matter.

JCT: Though the MMAR has been proven a failure in Ontario,
it hasn't been proven a failure in Alberta and since the
doctrine of stare decisis no longer applies....

As Mr. Iovinelli's evidence only relates to what application
was made before the Court of Appeal panel that heard Krieger
and what the Court of Appeal's decision was regarding the
stay, it cannot affect my decision.

JCT: She couldn't validate the stay so she copped out with
the refusal to obey stare decisis because the Court of
Appeal doesn't have to.

As a consequence, in my view, there is no need to
inconvenience Mr. Iovinelli by requiring him to attend, and
I therefore quash as well the subpoena. That is my decision.
Is there anything further I need to deal with today?

JCT: The room was areel with medpot supporters barfing all
over the floor. Okay, I exaggerate once.

MS. OZEM: One housekeeping matter, My Lady. Part of the
original notice of motion and part of the very recently
filed notice of motion was an application by Mr. Cornelssen
to bring in a tape recorder, pursuant to a provision of the
Ontario Court of Justice Act.
In my original materials I indicated that the Ontario Courts
of Justice Act has no authority over the Courts in Alberta,
and no grounds were provided by the accused for bringing in
a tape recorder. The court -- the court clerks record the
proceedings of the court as a matter of record, so unless
there are any further issues he wishes to address with
respect to that issue, I don't know if you need to hear from
me further.
THE COURT: That -- that was not argued before me at all
today. I had not understood that that was part of your
application today, Mr. Cornelssen. It is 4:30 and I wonder
if you want to -- to try arguing that now or if you would
prefer just to leave that for another day?
THE ACCUSED: I think we will leave that for another day.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE ACCUSED: Not much to record now.
THE COURT: Sorry?
THE ACCUSED: There's not much left to record now.
THE COURT: I do not think so. Thank you.
MS. OZEM: Thank you, My Lady. The return date then for Mr.
Cornelssen is November 25th for pre-trial conference. That
is also his deadline for filing his Constitutional
challenge.
THE COURT: Mr. Cornelssen, I am sure you are aware of that.
THE ACCUSED: I understood this.
THE COURT: Madam clerk, there is a pile of materials here.
It is completely a mess and not sorted at all, it does need
to be carefully sorted.
THE COURT CLERK: Yes, My Lady.
THE COURT: There are two packages there that need to be
dealt with separately.
THE COURT CLERK: Yes, My Lady.
PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED
Certificate of Record
I, S. Smithies, certify that this recording is a record of
the oral evidence of proceedings in the Court of Queen's
Bench, held in courtroom 311, at Edmonton, Alberta, on the
16th day of November, 2005, and I was in charge of the
sound-recording machine.

JCT: As for all the Har hars, when I write a final book,
it's the laughs that will be kept in most and it's my way of
culling for the good stuff.



--
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

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Cornelssen. Ms. Ozem.
MS. OZEM: My Lady, the accused gives only half the equation
that has to be considered here. Certainly, whether the
suspension is still extant is one of the issues that's
before the Court for consideration, however, that issue may
very well be moot. The other matter that is before the Court
for consideration is whether by enacting the MMAR within the
time period allotted by the suspension order given by Acton,
J., the legislation was saved.

JCT: And the Court of Appeal in both J.P. and Hitzig says
that it did not.

It is the contention of the Crown that when Acton, J.
allowed for a suspension period of one year and under the
wording under which she said Section 7(1) was declared
invalid and gave a period for which the Government could
correct the problem, when the Government enacted the MMAR
within that one-year period the Government corrected the
problem.

JCT: She knows the Marijuana Medical Access Regulations
(MMAR) have been declared a failure to work on time land
forced the staying of 4000 charges but still argues the
Government corrected the problem. Amazing how lawyers can so
divorce their minds from reality. It's as if they will
believe and say anything that can help their case. Yet, with
no proof it worked, she can only argue that it did not "not
work."

The legislation is then deemed valid until a court of
competent jurisdiction rules otherwise.

JCT: The highest court in Ontario ruled otherwise.

The only way a court of competent jurisdiction can rule
otherwise is if someone constitutionally challenges the
validity of the Government's response to that legislation.

JCT: Which was done successfully at the Ontario Court of
Appeal in J.P. and Hitzig.

Then it is put into question that -- that the response has
been invalid.

JCT: The court were pretty clear in J.P. and Hitzig.

Then do we only get into the issue as to whether or not the
suspension is still extant. But my friend has jumped to part
two before he's even addressed part one.

JCT: Part 1 was already addressed.

And in Alberta there has been no constitutional challenge to
the enacting of the MMAR since the Krieger case, until last
week in fact.

JCT: As if the Ontario Court of Appeal doesn't count and it
has to be challenged in each and every province. The fact
they dropped 4000 charges in all provinces puts a lie to her
statement that stare decisis doesn't apply in Alberta.

That was the very first time the -- there has been a
challenge -- a written challenge to the Crown with respect
to the MMAR. It was only just filed, it has never been
litigated. So to this date, there has been no successful
constitutional challenge to the MMAR in the Province of
Alberta.

JCT: As if the Ontario Court of Appeal doesn't count.

So this is where, first of all, the accused's argument
fails. He seems to bypass the notion that once -- that when
a Judge sus -- declares a piece of legislation invalid, they
can do it under Section 52 only to the extent of the
inconsistency. The legislation doesn't disappear, it's
invalid only to the extent of the inconsistency. Once the
Government rectifies the inconsistency within the time
period allotted, there is a deemed presumption of validity
until the Court directs otherwise.

JCT: They did not rectify and not in the time allotted.

Now, there was a situation that arose in Ontario in the case
of Hitzig where the Government did enact the MMAR. The Court
of Appeal didn't feel that it was fully enacted to their
satisfaction. They struck down five provisions within the
MMAR and found that by striking down five out of 71
provisions within the MMAR, it made the rest of Section 4
constitutional.
Consequently, what happened is when the suspension period
expired, any charges that fell between the expiry of that
suspension period and from the time that they corrected the
MMAR themselves, charges within that time period were
considered unconstitutional and ended up being stayed.

JCT: Why in Alberta if the decision doesn't count there?

But any charges from that time onward, October 7th, 2003
were constitutionally valid and in force and effect, and
this is the problem that Mr. Cornelssen is running into.
So I think might I'll -- what I might do is just maybe go
start back with the beginning and some -- sort of some basic
concepts.

JCT: Like courts, not Parliament, enact penal laws.

I appreciate that Your Honour or Your Ladyship has read the
materials and so I'll try to be as brief as I can with
respect to the issues here. But I'll deal with first of all
his issue regarding the suspension, and then I'll deal with
the fact that the law is still valid within the Province of
Alberta.
First of all as applicant, the onus of proof is on him. He
is the one who has to establish that the suspension no
longer exists in the Province of Alberta. He has been trying
to shift that onus to the Crown. That is not my burden to
establish, it is his burden to establish that that
suspension no longer exists.

JCT: She doesn't have to prove the suspension is still alive
after the appeal, he has to prove that it's lapsed.

What we have before this Court is an order from Justice
O'Leary of the Court of Appeal that says that the effect of
the declaration of invalidity of Acton, J. has been stayed
until further order of this Honourable Court.

JCT: Note how she ducks whether the Final Order is further
too.

In order to discharge that burden, he has to show this Court
an order that says that O'Leary, J.A.'s order has been
vacated.

JCT: When in Canadian history was an appellant forced to
prove that an interim order was no longer any good after the
appeal?

He has not done that. He has not shown any evidence
whatsoever that Justice O'Leary's order has been vacated.

JCT: He has the highest court in Alberta saying the law is
invalid. She has nothing.

In fact, the only evidence that is before this Court is that
Justice O'Leary's order is still extant.

JCT: Lawyers never cease to nauseate me. They're so crooked
it shocks.

The -- we have two affidavits before you that say that --
specifically that there were discussions that took place
before the application. That when Mr. Couper went before
Justice O'Leary, he went before Justice O'Leary as
appellant. Within the body of his application he asked that
it be granted until the appeal was resolved.

JCT: For which he had the legal right.

He had discussions with members of the Department who said,
We may need to go beyond that point because facts have
changed since the date that Mr. Krieger was charged.

JCT: For which he did not have the legal right without
asking to stay the Court of Appeal's Order pursuant to the
Supreme Court of Canada Act.

The MMAR had since been enacted. The Flinflon (phonetic)
Project had since come up, facts had changed since that
time.

JCT: And the Court of Appeal ruled Acton hadn't obliged them
to do anything so what was it going to prove?

So, in the event that we lose the appeal, we want to be able
to call a hearing to show that the suspension should not be
lifted.

JCT: The suspension died and if they lost, they had to ask
for a new suspension under the SCC Act. There was no power
under the functus officio court of appeal's act to help
them. It had to be a new one under the SCC Act.

So Mr. Couper approached Mr. Iovinelli, they had a
discussion about the specific wording of the order. When
they approached Mr. Justice O'Leary they pointed out the
differences between the two wordings, i.e., until the
expiration of the appeal or the resolution of the appeal.
Or, until further order of the Court, which would be sine
die.

JCT: Sine die means "without a date." Forever if you don't
count the Final Order as a further Order and lapsed with the
Final Order of the appeal if you do.

Mr. Justice O'Leary chose sine die. He didn't have a problem
with that. Defence counsel didn't have a problem with that
and I would suggest there's a very good reason defence
counsel wouldn't have had a problem with that, and it's
because his client's personal exemption was also tied into
that one-year suspension period.

JCT: Krieger would still want an exemption after the law was
gone? Har har har har.

Had that one-year suspension period expired before any
appeal was heard or in the event that that appeal was lost,
his client would have lost his personal exemption as well.

JCT: But he wouldn't have needed it anymore. If she wants to
keep repeating the straight line, I'll keep repeating the
punch line.

So it isn't only the Crown that could have appealed, gone
before Justice O'Leary and made that application, it was
also Mr. Iovinelli that could have done that as well.

JCT: He'd say: Now that the law is gone, I'd like is
exemption extended. A request for an extension of protection
he no longer needs would be as useless a request to lift
stay at is no longer there. Pink elephants everywhere?

But that still bespeaks the fact that there's no order
saying that O'Leary, J.A.'s order was vacated.

JCT: There's no proof the pink elephant has vacated.

And in fact, the Crown went one step further, it produced
two affidavits to say that when the appeal before the Court
of Appeal was actually heard, that after the decision was
rendered from the Bench Mr. Iovinelli applied to have the
suspension lifted. According to his affidavit, his
application was dismissed.

JCT: Even though we've all heard that the court did not
entertain it, she still trying to use it.

So when Mr. Cornelssen says they're mirror images of one
another, he is mistaken. Mr. Iovinelli says the application
was dismissed. Mr. Couper says the Court of Appeal declined
to hear it. They are both ad edam when they said the Court
of Appeal would not deal with the matter in the absence of
having an application where there was a full hearing with
evidence being called.

JCT: Evidence to prove compliance with what Acton did not
oblige them to do. Har har har har.

And that was a very prudent thing for the Court of Appeal to
have done because they would have to have the full set of
circumstances as to why you would lift a suspension on -- on
a very important piece of legislation that is very regularly
used to control the production of marijuana in this
province.

JCT: She's still pushing the line that it's the Court of
Appeal who say the stay is still alive.

So they did not deliberately lift that suspension order, and
he can't prove that they did and it's his burden, not mine.
It's his. He has not shown that that suspension order was
lifted.

JCT: "He did not lift that pink elephant and he can't prove
that he and it's his burden, not hers? It's his. He has not
shown that the pink elephant was lifted. So it's still
there." Let her prove there's a pink elephant still there, a
stay still there, then we'll entertain the notion of lifting
it.

He then says that the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the
appeal. That isn't what happened in the Supreme Court of
Canada. Application was made by the Crown for leave to
appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada and leave to appeal
was denied. The Supreme Court of Canada never heard the
appeal on the merits, it never got that far.

JCT: Because it had insufficient merit to argue.

And in fact, there was a one-liner issued from the Supreme
Court of Canada in it's usual fashion, Leave to appeal is
dismissed. They never dealt with the issue of the suspension
so the suspension is still extant.

JCT: "They never dealt with the pink elephant so the pink
elephant is still extant." Har har har har. How little logic
at the command of these low-tech thinksters.

And as Mr. Couper so rightly puts it, for all intents and
purposes he still is the appellant in the original Krieger
case because that one issue is still alive.

JCT: And it didn't make the legal history books? Why not
when it never happened before?

It has never been dealt with to this date. So that deals
with the suspension issue but again, that only kicks into
place whe -- if -- if we totally ignore the other issue
which is, the Government did respond by enacting the MMAR in
time.
Now, Mr. Cornelssen may argue that the Court of Appeal in
Ontario didn't particularly like the MMAR as originally
drafted. That's irrelevant. The Court of Appeal of Ontario
has no jurisdiction over the courts in Alberta.

JCT: This should be news to most lawyers who have been told
that the doctrine of stare decisis means lower courts must
follow the dictates of higher courts though equivalent
courts of appeal do not. In her third book of arguments, she
cited in Tab #6: 8.7 Precedent: Canadian courts accept the
doctrine of precedent (or stare decisis), under which the
decisions of a court are binding on courts lower in the
judicial hierarchy.
Then in Tab #4, Wolf v. Queen (1974): No rule of law or
practice that uniformity requires one Court of Appeal to
follow decision of Court of Appeal of another province
unless latter "clearly wrong." So because the Alberta Court
of Appeal is not bound by stare decisis, she argues all
lower Alberta courts are not bound by the Ontario Court of
Appeal either. This is news to most lawyers and judges but,
like in Orwell's 1984, they will quickly forget how things
used to be and accept how things have now become.

That -- while their decisions may be persuasive, that did
not in any way shape how we administer justice in this
province.

JCT: Seems like a weak interpretation of stare decisis.

Section 7(1) and Section 4(1) were still alive and well
after the Hitzig judgments or the Parker judgments were
granted and delivered from the Benches in that province.
So the fact that the MMAR were never challenged here and
have never been successfully challenged here leaves him in a
bind, because the legislation is presumptively valid until
such time as it is successfully constitutionally challenged.

JCT: Sick, eh? Lawying by a professional.

And in Mr. Cornelssen's case, he's got an even further
problem because in Hitzig they didn't like how the
Government had dealt with the MMAR up until the time that
Hitzig had been charged. But Mr. Cornelssen's offence date
is August 31st, 2004, yet the MMAR had been amended several
times since.

JCT: The issue isn't the existence of the MMAR, it's the
existence of the CDSA prohibition. Show where the CDSA was
re-enacted after it had been invalidated.

So the only way that Mr. Cornelssen can effectively
challenge and say that this law in this province is not in
effect, is to constitutionally challenge Section 1 and the
provisions of the MMAR up until the date of his offence,
which he has not done. No one's done that.

JCT: Presuming the law was resurrected by the courts, this
would be the thing to do. Refusing to accept courts
resurrect penal laws, it's not.

And until it's done, that law's still valid in this
province.

JCT: So the MMAR has to challenged in each and every
province is what Gwena is telling Justice Read. Will Justice
Read be convinced to forget everything she ever learned
about stare decisis?

So he runs into that -- that hiccup right off the path, and
unless he can get by that hiccup he doesn't even get to the
part of his argument as to whether or not the suspension is
still extant.

JCT: Since he has not proven the MMAR did not work in
Alberta, and since Justice Read isn't bound by stare decisis
any more.... it's a lot for a judge to take on.

I have provided to Your Ladyship copious materials with
respect to various issues Mr. Cornelssen -- despite the fact
that he says he's limiting this to Section 7, has provided
voluminous materials as to whether or not Section 4 is still
extant in Alberta and that sort of thing. I don't know if
Your Ladyship wants me to get into any of that.
I've provided voluminous materials from the Court of Appeal
in Ontario which shows that certainly in Ontario as of
October 7, 2003, that Section 4 is still alive and well and
in force and effect.

JCT: The court said they re-enacted the section that had
been deemed repealed so it's alive there and alive here.

That on that same day, Mr. Cornelssen's ghost writer, Mr.
Turmel lost his own appeal by attempting to get the word
marijuana struck from Schedule II,

JCT: Get "the word marijuana declared already struck down
since Terry Parker Day Aug. 1 2001. Just like our challenge
was to get the prohibition declared invalid since Terry
Parker Day, not declared invalid again, so too, have the
word struck since it had to fixed and the Section 4(1) was
not changed to say "except marijuana." The judges said the
law didn't have to be written precisely, they'd remember
which laws on the books were good and which were no longer
good. Har har har. The guys who forgot and caused the 4000
errors that had to be fixed. And more.

saying that since, you know, the suspension period had
passed in Parker that marijuana was lost for all intents and
purposes within Schedule II of the CDSA. He lost that
appeal, in fact he tried to appeal that to the Supreme Court
of Canada and never filed his materials in time. And -- and
they deemed his appeal as abandoned and dismissed that for
want of following through.
Mr. Turmel also as a civil intervener, was one of the
parties in the Hitzig app -- in the Hitzig appeal. Mr.
Turmel lost his application in the Hitzig appeal and again
attempted to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, and
again never filed his materials in time and provided no
reason for the delay. And again, the Supreme Court of Canada
denied him leave to appeal and considered his appeal as
abandoned.

JCT: That's the official line but we know everything was
perfected and ready to go to the 3-judge panel on the two
biggest cases recently added to the Martin's Criminal Code
and he aborted each for getting one document in late!!
That's a fix, not an abandonment.

They did not provide the companion cases which I have he has
been arguing vociferously that the Court of Appeal of
Ontario has jurisdiction over this province,

JCT: Over the lower courts anyway, and the Court of Appeal
for Alberta if not wrong.

which is why I went on at some length about stare decisis
which I normally would not insult a Court of Queen's Bench
Justice with doing, but he has been referring to it
relentlessly throughout his materials.

JCT: She would not insult the judge with a lecture on stare
decisis as she urges her to ignore the doctrine!

The -- ironically while he is suggesting that the
Court of Appeal in Parker and to one extent in Hitzig,
should have binding power in this province,

JCT: Called stare decisis and which used to be the doctrine.

he completely came out on the very same day from the Court
of Appeal in Ontario, and believes that you should ignore
those entirely.

JCT: When the over-extended their authority. I know it can
confuse a Crown lawyer but yes, Max said the Ontario Court
of Appeal should be followed when they did what they have
the power to do, strike down bad laws, and should be ignored
when they did what they do not have the power to do, strike
up bad laws.

His view is, is that if something happened to Section 4 or
to Section 7, the only way that the Crown can proceed and
legitimately prosecute people would have been to re-enact
the section.

JCT: No, it's the view of Parliament in the Interpretation
Act.

That, in fact, is not the case. The Court of fact, where
he'd been producing lower court decisions for you, they've
all been specifically overruled by the Court of Appeal. He
then produced Justice Rogin's decision which was the
specifically overruled and it was done so for proper
reasons.

JCT: Rogin is another who accepted the Interpretation Act
that laws that have been struck down are deemed to be
repealed.

In -- both Judges failed to appreciate that in
constitutional interpretation it is Section 52(1) of the
Constitution Act that is implied, not the Interpretation Act
or Re-enactment Provisions. The difference is, is that
Section 52 states right within the body of the section that
the Constitution is the supreme law of Canada, not the
Interpretation Act. The Constitution is.

JCT: Of course, we never said that the Interpretation Act
applies so the Constitution Act does not. She's just making
that up.

And Section 52 states that the -- that the law is invalid
only to the extent of the inconsistency. It doesn't wipe out
the entirety of the legislation unless the entirety of the
legislation is inconsistent with the Constitution. Only that
tiny aspect of it that may be inconsistent. And if that
inconsistency can be remedied, then it becomes valid again.

JCT: The "absent" Ontario Court of Appeal Interpretation
instead of the "repealed" Parliament Interpretation Act.
It does not require re-enactment, it does not require Appeal
of Ontario was very specific on that point.

JCT: How handy to be able to cite such high sources of
precedent for a dirty deed.

Parliament does not have to re-enact it, it can be re-
enacted by legislation and also that it doesn't have to be
re-enacted period. In fact, that it could never have been
repealed in the first place. They were very clear on that

JCT: That's right. Doherty, Goudge and Simmons said that the
judges who followed the Interpretation Act were wrong and
that from now on, laws that are struck down are no longer
deemed to have been repealed but only until absent until the
inconsistency can be remedied. They're could now be working
on remedying the absent capital punishment section without
any need of Parliament. Think about that.

and I would note that Mr. Cornelssen has not provided any
appellate authority from any jurisdiction that contradicts
judgments from any other jurisdiction that contradict the
Court of Appeal in J.P. other than the one decision that was
overturned. So the -- the only Superior Court decision he
has provided in his most recent materials a decision again
which is not binding on this Court. It's a Provincial Court
decision of Judge Chen from the B --from the British
Columbia Provincial Court.
Judge Chen has gone through extensive work reproducing many
of the cases in which this argument that this is an offence
unknown to the law has been put before the Court. And to
Judge Chen's credit, has done considerable background and
gone through the Judges -- or the judgments that have been
issued basically from coast to coast. And it -- and has
pointed out that the judgments go both ways at the
Provincial Court level.
What happened is and where Mr. Cornelssen has a problem with
this particular decision, (a) it's a Provincial Court
decision, it's not binding. (b) It was issued on September
Ontario Court of Appeal came out. So it's pre-Court of
Appeal cases.

JCT: Chen explained how he was following the Interpretation
Act before the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that it should
be ignored.

And the problem is, is that at that point the only Superior
Court judgment that was really out for circulation was the
we all know that that has since been overturned.
He also applied at that time the Superior Court decision in
Hitzig, and that was changed by the Court of Appeal. So
there are numerous factual situations which make the Chen
decision wrong. First of all, at paragraph 56:
"Implicit in the question of whether the MMAR could save
Section 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, I am
unable to agree with the conclusion of Stanfield, P.C.J.
that Section 4(1) remains valid legislation until a Court
decides that the MMAR does not save it.

JCT: But a court did finally decide that the MMAR did not
save it.

I adopt the reasons in Parker as Section 4 was declared
invalid as it relates to marijuana. The legislation is
invalid unless Section 4 is re-enacted."

JCT: That's how it used to be.

And that's where he made his mistake.

JCT: And now how the judges say it's going to be.

He followed the -- our -- Ontario Court of Justice decision
in J.P. which was overturned. So that was actually an error.
The Court of Appeal said that reasoning was in error, it
didn't have to be re-enacted.

JCT: And who should a judge obey, Parliament or Doherty,
Goudge and Simmons JJ.A.?

And then he made a further error on paragraph 66. He states
if he's wrong in his other analyses and it is possible for
regulations actually to halt the declaration of invalidity,
he agrees with the decision in Hitzig, which at this point
is the Superior Court one, that the MMAR were inadequate for
the purpose.

JCT: He accepts that they failed in BC too.

However, Hitzig from the Court of Appeal had not come out
where they struck down five provisions and said, Now it is
constitutional and in force and effect. So he wasn't aware
of that decision either.

JCT: Because it came after his and he was working upon
Parliament's Interpretation Act that they are repealed until
re-enacted by Parliament and not the Court's new
Interpretation Ruling that they are "absent until fixed by
the Courts.

And what really hurts him actually is contained right in the
very body of his own decision, and I -- I am most impressed
actually with the fairness of Judge Chen because he states
right in his own decision at paragraph 61: Wilson, J. sets
out the situations in which it is permissible to depart from
the requirements of judicial comity.
Those situations are described there as follows: (a)
Subsequent decisions have affected the validity of the
impugned judgment.
Here we have at least three Court of Appeal judgments that
have been issued since that were not around when Chen was
issued.

JCT: So since the judges created new laws after Judge Chen
made his ruling, he was wrong???

(b) It is demonstrated that some binding authority in case
law or some other relevant statute was not considered.
Well, clearly we have highly persuasive authority that was
never considered, and we also have relevant sta --statutes
that were not considered in that significant amendments to
the MMAR were enacted in December of 2003, again in 2004 and
again in 2005 which were not before him in September of
2003.

JCT: All these fixes years after it was dead brought it back
to life.

So that again really negates the effectiveness of this
particular judgment.
Thirdly, the relevant statute that was not considered in his
judgment was Section 52 of the Constitution Act. He applied
the reasoning that the Court of Appeal found to be
incorrect, and didn't apply Section 52 which is what the
these other Judges didn't apply. So right within his own
decisions -- his own decision, he indicates where his own
weaknesses lay because he certainly wouldn't have been aware
of the decisions that were going to be coming out in about
one month's time.

JCT: He wasn't aware that the Courts were going to tell all
the judges to ignore Parliament. And they all did.

So with respect to those issues, unless you have any further
questions regarding that, the only other comments I would
make essentially would be relating to whether or not Mr.
Iovinelli still needs to be produced.




--
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

THE COURT: Mr. Cornelssen, if you have no more questions for
the witness, I would like to find out if your friend has
any. And if she does not, I would like to be able to excuse
this witness. So why do not save save argument for --
THE ACCUSED: Okay.
THE COURT: -- for once we have dealt with the witness. Ms.
Ozem, do you have any questions for this witness?
MS. OZEM: Yes, ma'am. Thank you.

*Ms. Ozem Re-examines the Witness
Q: MS. OZEM: Mr. Couper, with respect to the original
affidavit that you executed on October 28th, 2005, where was
the information from that affidavit gathered?
A: It was gathered -- it was gathered from -- from our file.
In terms of the dates, Ms. Ozem, or -
Q: No, just in terms of -- Mr. Cornelssen asked you if I had
provided you with the affidavit.
A: Yes.
Q: Where did the information come from that was contained
within the affidavit?
A: Yes. It came -- well, certainly it was on our files and
it was provided by me to you.
Q: Okay. And then were you provided with a draft affidavit?
A: I was, yes.
Q: Did you make any changes to that draft affidavit?
A: I made -- I made one change -- if I might have a moment
to find where I made it. At paragraph 3 of the affidavit,
the second last sentence where I state the Court of Appeal
declined to entertain the application, I made a change from
the initial draft which read that the Court of Appeal
dismissed the application.

JCT: Iovinelli helped the Crown establish that the court had
entertained and refused the application to lift the stay and
Couper corrected it to the truth that the court had refused
to entertain the ridiculous request. But then went on to say
they said another court should deal with the ridiculous
request.

In my view, that wasn't quite the correct way of describing
what -- what had occurred. It wasn't a case of Mr.
Iovinelli's application being dismissed, but the just simply
-- just simply declined the opportunity to address the
question.

JCT: Declined the opportunity? It wasn't an opportunity if
it was a legitimate application. They could only treat it
this way if it was ridiculous. Yet, to say they suggested
another panel should is the incredible part.

Prior to you swearing this affidavit, had you read the draft
affidavit of Mr. Iovinelli? (A:) No, I hadn't, no. (Q:) Had
you had any discussions with Mr. Iovinelli --Regard --
regarding this particular matter? (A:) NO. NO.

JCT: I don't know why the transcript doesn't identify Q & A
so I them put in () where I think it was appropriate.

(Q:) I'd like to turn to the written submissions of the
Crown Appellant on Chambers application, the one that you
prepared for the order ultimately issued by Justice O'Leary.
(A:) Yes, the -- the written submissions? (Q:) Yes. Do you
have that before you? (A:) I do.
(Q:) Now, you've indicated to Mr. Cornelssen at the bottom
of paragraph 1, you had indicated in your last sentence that
you were seeking a suspension of the order until the final
disposition of the appeal. Is that correct? (A:) Yes, that's
what I wrote. (Q:) Okay. However, in your prayer for relief
you indicate the bottom of page 20 -- or sorry, bottom --
paragraph 20 at the bottom of page 10, top of page 11 that
you were requesting one of two things. What are the one of
two things that you request?
A: I was requesting alternative reliefs until the -- that
the suspension be extended until the resolution of the
appeal, or until further order of the Court. That was the
relief I had -- I had sought.
Q: Why did you express that prayer for relief in the
alternative?
A: I had had discussions with -- with other counsel in my
department with regard to how long we would want this
suspension to -- to go on, and the feeling was that if the
appeal was dismissed, we would want an opportunity to call
evidence to show the changes in the regulatory --regulatory
scheme with regard to medical access to marijuana, and how
it's changed since Mr. Krieger was charged in 1999. And we
had felt that the order should -- that we request the Court
to impose the -- simply stated until further order of the
Court to allow us to call such evidence.

JCT: Aha. It was the Crown's position that they wanted to
call evidence about what had been done. We were told the
judges had said so.

Q: And was that evidence anticipated to be called before or
after the determination by the Court of Appeal on the
Section 7(1) invalidity issue?
A: Well, it -- it would be proposed to be called after. We
would seek a ruling on -- on the appeal. If the appeal was
allowed, the Crown's appeal was allowed then -- then it
wouldn't be -- wouldn't be an issue. If it was not allowed,
then we'd want an opportunity to -- to demonstrate to the
Court that -- that the concerns raise: by Justice Acton in
her initial order had been -- had been addressed.

JCT: So the Crown wanted an extra hearing on whether the
Acton concerns had been addressed. And luckily, the Court in
their decision said that what the Government would have to
do was of no concern of theirs, that Justice Acton had not
demanded the Government do anything, only that she struck
down the law. Remember paragraph 6 of 7 which said: Nor are
we satisfied that the trial judge imposed any positive
obligation on the Crown to do something, she just struck
s.7(1). Her order imposed no obligation. And yet, we're to
believe that the court wanted hearings on whether the
government had complied with her "no obligations." After the
court specifically rejected the Crown's arguments that Acton
was forcing them to do something, now we're told the court
also wants to take time to discuss what the government had
done about what Acton had not obliged them to do. Har har
har har. They're not doddering fools who would say that what
the government had done to comply with Acton should be shown
in a hearing and then writing in the decision that there was
no obligation to be complied with.

Q: And so that was in your mind and clearly stated within
the application that you submitted for -- before Justice
O'Leary, is that correct?
A: The alternative remedies were, yes.
Q: Okay.
A: I don't state it in my -- in my brief as such, but
certainly the -- the -- as I recall when Mr. Iovinelli and I
appeared before Justice O'Leary, I did address with him that
-- that we did want the order to -- to last until further
order of the Court and not simply until the determination of
the appeal and --

JCT: He did tell O'Leary he wanted the order to last not
simply until the appeal but past the appeal until further
Order of the Court. O'Leary couldn't do that but I guess he
didn't tell them. Maybe he didn't know too?

Q: So when you appeared before Justice O'Leary on November
28th, 2001, at that point you had the status of appellant?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. Now, on November 28, 2001 when you appeared before
Justice O'Leary, did you have a discussion with Justice
O'Leary about the alternate remedies you were seeking?
A: I -- I recall I did have. We -- I told him that -- that
the relief mentioned in my brief was until -- was until the
determination of the appeal, but our order stated that it
was -- proposed order was that it was to last until further
order of the Court. And that was acceptable to the Court and
to Mr. Iovinelli.

JCT: It was acceptable to Mr. Iovinelli that he'd have to do
even more than win the appeal to win the case. Must have
studied under Alan Young at York University's Osgoode Hall
School of Law. Har har har.

Q: Did you explain to Justice O'Leary why you wanted the
wording, Until further order of this Honourable Court?
A: I can't recall if I did and I can't recall him what -- I
can't recall whether he specifically asked why.

JCT: I wonder what lawyers reading this who throw in the
usual "or for any further order of the court" after
requesting all that they try to get think upon reading this.
Doesn't everyone know that "until further order" means more
than what you asked for that you deserve? Har har har.

Q: Did Mr. Iovinelli have any objection to the wording -- to
extend the order until further order of this Honourable
Court?

JCT: Iovinelli's working with the Crown, like Alan Young
worked with Crown Lara Speirs to set aside the Pitt decision
that granted Terry Parker his perpetual exemption, so the
fact he gave away his client's store carries no weight. .

A: No. No. I -- I prepared the order that's exhibited to my
affidavit beforehand and as I recall, I obtained -- he
indicated to Justice O'Leary that he was in agreement with
the order and he signed the -- his approval as to form and
content of the order at that -- at that point in time. It
was not a contested application in -- in any sense of the
word.

JCT: Of course, I don't expect him to object to "any further
Order" sought since it's a standard phrase they add to mean
"anything if not what we asked for." Now they say it means
"all if not what we asked for."

Q: And Justice O'Leary then approved that order?
A: Yes.
Q: Was there any discussion with counsel prior to that
hearing as to the wording of the order, and why you wanted
the order worded that way?
A: I recall I -- I discussed it with Mr. Iovinelli just
prior to court commencing as to the wording of the order.
And I -- I do believe I --- I raised that concern with him
in terms of -- in terms of wanting -- wanting the Court to
determine -- determine the present status of the regulatory
scheme should the appeal be dismissed, rather than -- rather
than reverting to what was in existence at the time Mr.
Krieger was charged.

JCT: But now we know from their decision that Acton imposed
no obligation to be met so why would they want to have
evidence of what was done to meet the obligations Acton did
not oblige them to meet. Har har har har.

Q: Now, I understand that Justice Acton had issued a one-
year period under which there had been a suspension of the
declaration of invalidity, but also a personal exemption for
the accused Krieger --
A: Yes.
Q: -- is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, at the time that you made your application before
Justice O'Leary, was Mr. Krieger's personal exemption close
to running out?
A: The order of Justice Acton was to run for a period of --
period of one year and I believe the -- I believe the
interpretation that we had was that Mr. Krieger's personal
exemption wouldn't necessarily run out in the one year, but
the striking down or the suspension of the order striking
down Section 7(1) would -- would run out unless there were
steps taken to address the concerns in Justice Acton's
judgment.
Q: So why was it then that when the order was made before
Justice O'Leary, that he also stayed indefinitely the
personal exemption of Mr. Krieger?
A: Until further order of the Court?
Q: Yes.
A: Yes. We would -- in my mind the two were linked in -- in
the appeal. If the appeal was successful, then of course his
personal exemption would -- we would ask the Court to -- to
cancel his personal -- personal exemption.
Q: So would Mr. Iovinelli also have been a party interested
in appearing before Justice O'Leary to make an application
to extend his client's personal exemption indefinitely?

JCT: Why would be needed indefinitely after he wins that the
law is dead?

A: That was never discussed with Mr. Iovinelli. My
interpretation of Justice Acton's order was that the --was
that Mr. Krieger's exemption would have -- would have
continued beyond the year, although that's not specifically
stated in her -- in her judgment. Her judgment states that -
- that simply her hope would be --and I don't know if I have
her judgment here. It's towards the end of the -- end of the
judgment. It was her hope that the Government would take
steps to -- to rectify the legal access problem prior to the
year.
Q: Actually, I'll just ask you to read se -- paragraph 57 of
her --
A: Yes.
Q: -- judgment which is the last paragraph of her judgment
into the record, please.
A: With respect to Mr. Krieger, I am satisfied on the
evidence of the Crown's expert witness and Mr. Krieger
himself that it would be inhumane not to grant Mr. Krieger
an exemption from the prohibition in Section 7(1) of the
CDSA during the period of the suspended invalidity in order
that he may cultivate cannabis marijuana for his own medical
use. Pursuant to Section 24(1) of the Charter, I would stay
the proceedings against him under Section 7(1).
So her judgment there appears to talk about during the
period -- yes it does, during the period of -- of the
suspension.
Q: So as appellant, you were not necessarily the only party
that could have applied for an extension of the suspension
period?
A: I suppose Mr. Iovinelli could very well have as well.

JCT: Apply to keep the law alive so he could apply to keep
the exemption protecting against the law alive too. That
only serves to keep it illegal for everyone but Krieger.

Q: Thank you. And to your knowledge, has anyone applied to
set aside the suspension order in question?
A: Not to my knowledge.

JCT: No one has applied to move the pink elephant so it's
still in the chair?

MS. OZEM: Thank you, those are my questions Mr. Couper.
A: Thank you.
THE COURT: Anything arising?
THE ACCUSED: May I ask a couple of questions?
THE COURT: Well, if they are related to what -- the
questions that Ms. Ozem asked, yes.

*The Accused Re-cross-examines the Witness
Q: THE ACCUSED: You -- indicated that Ms. Ozem contacted you
and you gave her the original information, including the
mistaken date of April the -- or March the 18th instead of
December the 4th.
A: Well, I -- I didn't give her the -- the date. That was
just a mistake in -- in the way that -- the way the
affidavit was drafted that I unfortunately didn't catch when
I -- when I looked at it.
Q: Where would you -- she was not in attendance at the -- at
the hearing, so how would she have known about the
application if you hadn't told her? Would she have got it
from someplace else? Like, had you told Mr. Frankel, for
example, who could have informed Ms. Ozem? Where --where
would she have known -- got the date of the application
being made on March the 18th if she didn't get it from you?
A: I -- I can't speak for the --
MS. OZEM: He's asking the witness to speculate, My Lady.
Q: THE ACCUSED: I just find it hard to understand that both
could make the same mistake in affidavits without there
being some connection. But --
A: The memorandum of judgment was filed on March 18th.
Q: Yes.
A: The memorandum, if you look at it, states that.
Q: Yes, but there was no hearing at that time so obviously
no application at that time?
A: No.
Q: And no mention whatsoever in the memorandum of this
application that was raised on December the 4th to -- to
have the stay lifted. The stay that, in our opinion, expired
because it was an interlocutory remedy to carry you over to
the appeal, and when the appeal didn't - was over, then the
stay was over.
A: The memorandum is silent on that question, yes.
Q: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Couper.
THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Couper. You --
A: Thank you, My Lady.
THE COURT: -- are excused.
A: Good day.
(WITNESS STANDS DOWN)

THE COURT: Now, as I understand it, one further witness has
been subpoenaed, Mr. Iovinelli.

JCT: Actually, if the Court accepts the truth, there's
nothing gained in exposing the Crown's subornation and
Iovinelli's perjury. Maybe Gwena didn't know Iovinelli was
lying until Couper told the truth.

We need to deal with that at some stage. It seems to me that
it might be helpful if we did not deal with that now, but
that instead we heard the rest of the argument and then -- I
just do not want to lose sight of that, Mr. Cornelssen.
Could you please remember to deal with that before we close
today if I forget?
THE ACCUSED: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Continue with your argument.

*Argument
THE ACCUSED: With the Court's permission, I would like to
read a short piece from the judgment of Judge Rogin On --
THE COURT: From --
THE ACCUSED: -- Ontario Superior Court, Judge Rogin.
THE COURT: Okay, which case is this?
THE ACCUSED: This was in the --in the J.P. case.
THE COURT: Okay. If you could pro -- if you could indicate
which page you are referring to or which paragraph number
you are referring to, it would be very helpful.
THE ACCUSED: This -- this would be in my materials entitled
Applicant's Final Written Submissions.
THE COURT: Okay, which --
THE ACCUSED: Filed October the 26th.
THE COURT: Let me find your document. Okay, and what are you
referring to?
THE ACCUSED:    I'm on page 5 of 9 of the --of the Rogin
case. And it talks about -- in about the middle of the page
he's talking about R v. McIntosh.
THE COURT: Sorry, I am -- I think I do not understand where
you are.
THE ACCUSED: Can I see if you have a --
THE COURT: Page 5 of your materials?
THE ACCUSED: We're on page 5 of 9 of the --of the case at
the back of it.
THE COURT: At the - - oh, I am sorry, at the back. Okay. And
I am sorry, in about the middle of the page --
THE ACCUSED: About the middle of the page, number 14, R v.
McIntosh.
THE COURT: I see, and this is a quotation from -- oh, I am
sorry, this is the complete case of Regina v. J.P.
THE ACCUSED: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. So --
THE ACCUSED: Yes. Now, he's quoting a Judge Larmer -- Lamer
who has this to say.
"As stated above, the overriding principle governing the
interpretation of penal provisions is that ambiguity should
be resolved in a manner most favourable to accused persons.
Moreover, in choosing between two possible interpretations,
a compelling consideration must be given to the effect to
the interpretation most consistent with the terms of -- I
think there's a typo in this one - when freedom is at stake,
clarity and certainty are of fundamental importance."
And that's my point. Your Honour. When freedom is at stake
as it is for myself and everyone else arrested under this,
the law should be clear and unambiguous; should certainly be
written down someplace. Now, the only evidence that we have
that this stay is still in effect are the affidavits of --
of a couple of Crown lawyers. Well, one Crown lawyer, one
defence lawyer but still part of the system and hardly
disinterested parties. If we were to be found correct that
the law has been dead since 2000 -- December of 2002, the
Crown would have to expunge the records of over 100,000
people. Would have to apologize, would have to pay fines
back, it would just be a tremendous thing. So they would be
highly motivated to do whatever it would take not to have to
do this.
And if -- it seems to me that if I -- if I'm to be convicted
under these laws, the very least I have the right to is just
to be able to be shown where Parliament has enacted them,
where they are in effect. Where they are written down and
they are not because the memorandum of March the 11th makes
no mention whatsoever of the stay of effect being extended.
It says the law is struck down, period.

JCT: And that there was no obligation to meet. So how could
they have suggested it took a hearing to see if they had met
Acton's obligations! What a contradiction.

Now, if that's the case then I would ask the Court what can
we do to produce the order from that appellant court. Now, I
know it's in Ms. Ozem's submissions that she has written to
the -- to the Court and she has asked for transcripts of the
tape recordings, and they have responded to her that they
are for the judges and the judges only.

JCT: Good point which hasn't been mentioned so far. Gwena
did ask the court for a transcript of the hearing and the
court refused to provide the proof that they suggested a
hearing to discuss whether the government had complied with
what they now say Acton did not ask them to comply with.

But I need them as well, I need to know that this actually
happened as they say it happened, otherwise I'm being
convicted simply on affidavits that are proven to be
mistaken, both of them on a pretty important point like what
was the date. If they can mistaken on that, maybe they're
mistaken on something else.
THE COURT: You are not going to be convicted of anything
today, Mr. Cornelssen.
THE ACCUSED: No, no, I'm not but --
THE COURT: You are well aware of that, I am sure.
THE ACCUSED: -- there's 100,000 people out there and 80,000
of them have been convicted under these laws because they
didn't know that it was dead.
My original intention was to have a constitutional challenge
based on hemp biomass fuel and I spent last summer out in
Stettler talking to farmers and trying to organize this. I
offered to donate 20 acres of farmland that I have there for
the construction of a plant. That was the direction I was
going in, and then I discovered that this had actually been
struck down already. The law is already dead. No point in me
trying to kill a law that's already dead.
And if it's not dead, then the Court -- someone should be
able to produce an order from Judges Costigan and Lovecchio
and Wittmann that says, yes, this is what happened. This was
our ruling on it. And if they aren't willing to put that on
paper, then why should it be give any credence?

JCT: But that would expose that they had contradicted
themselves if they said evidence of compliance was needed
for Acton's order which demanded no compliance.

And to me it seems very plain that an interlocutory order is
one that's granted up until the appeal, and that it was not
Judge Acton's intention that her one-year suspension still
be in effect almost five years later. I don't believe it was
O'Leary's intention that his six-month extension until the
appeal should still be living onward and onward and never
dies. If the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the supreme
law of the land, then how can it be held down by a never-
ending, never-expiring interlocutory order that goes on just
for as long as the Crown needs it to go.
And other than that, sir -- or ma'am, to ask one more time,
could someone please produce the order of the Court where it
says that this is what has happened. Because I do not
believe that the evidence of affidavits from lawyers is near
sufficient for what's at stake, which is 1,000 people every
week getting arrested under these laws and lives irreparably
damaged.
We should at least have the -- have it written down like
Rogin said in the case that he quoted; It's --there should
be no ambiguity. If people are going to be incarcerated the
law should be there, it should be enacted by Parliament. It
should be written down for everybody to read. There should
be no doubt, and there is doubt in this case. And I ask that
being the accused, that I be given the benefit of that doubt
because there's nothing that I can do to produce that order.
That is up to the Crown and the Court to produce the order,
and until I see it, how am I to know that this law's in
effect? Because what I do read is that Judge Acton struck it
down, that the Appeal Court of Alberta upheld her decision
to strike it down and that the Supreme Court of Canada
dismissed the Crown's appeal to appeal that. There's no
evidence other than this mysterious stay that never dies.
It's like if the supreme law of the land, the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms was Superman and the stay were
kryptonite and it renders Superman helpless. The supreme law
of the land can't do a thing because of this stay that never
ends.
And the normal way of doing things, as I understand it, is
that Mr. Couper being the Crown should have asked the Court,
should have -- he should have been the one making the
application. Could we have an extension until the Superior
Court of Canada can hear this. And in fact, he states that
this was his intention to make that application and then lo
and behold, the defence attorney says, May we please lift
the order that, in my opinion, expired automatically because
it was an interlocutory order. No need to have it lifted.
And if the final ruling of the Judges had already been made
and it was done as he indicates, everybody's getting ready
to leave and he sticks up his hand, then believe that the
term is functus officio.
And I believe that the -- that the definition of that is, is
that when it's over, the Court has no more authority to deal
with the matter. So maybe they were playing a joke on our
lawyer friends and they were saying, Oh, you can't lift
that. That takes -- that takes three Judges, even though
Judge O'Leary, one Judge, put it on with no evidence
whatsoever other than, Well, you haven't had an appeal, so
I'll give it to you until you appeal or until further order
of the Court which is perhaps less than the appeal.
Certainly not more, certainly not forever.
Is there any other example in Canadian law where an
interlocutory order like that goes on and on and on forever.
And who -- who can stop it? Can only Krieger take it off? Is
every Canadian subject to Grant Krieger lifting that stay,
and because he didn't lift that stay I got arrested, 1,000
people a week are getting arrested because a private citizen
doesn't bother to take the time and goes down to apply and
have the stay lifted.

JCT: Yes, his lawyer should have gone for the victory. That
he didn't was just helping the Crown once again.

It seems to me that's an absurdity, that the supreme law of
the country being the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should
reign supreme. And it shouldn't be up to one individual,
Grant Krieger, to set everything right for everybody. And it
shouldn't be up to -- to me to have to wonder if the law is
still in effect or not. It should be a clear order from the
Court, Yes, we granted it and then they would have to
explain where they got the authority to grant it after it's
functus officio, it's over and they have no more authority
on that. I think they were playing a joke on our lawyer
friends. I don't see what else it could be because if they
weren't, they would have written it up in their memorandum
because they know how important it is. They know how
important it is.

JCT: But when their memorandum says "Acton imposed no
obligation," it barred any need for evidence of compliance
of obligation she did not make.

So I can't assume that the Judges are forgetful and they
forgot to do it or that they're negligent and just didn't
put it in. I have to think that they knew they didn't have
to lift the suspension, because the suspension expired with
the order because it was granted by Judge O'Leary as a
temporary interlocutory order to carry them over until the
appeal was heard.

JCT: They knew it didn't take evidence of compliance because
they said so. But when Max gets to appeal in the next few
months, we'll find out. Unless he decides to put that
question on back burner and wait until after his trial to
ask in a couple of years.

And once the appeal was heard, Crown was no longer the
applicant, had no right to ask for an extension. The Judges
were functus officio, had no more authority to grant the
extension and were amazed by the fact that the defence
lawyer even asked for it and decided in a moment to -- to
say, We can't let that, you need three Judges --and -- and
evidence.

JCT: No, they would not have said evidence of meeting
Acton's obligation was needed if they knew there was no
Acton obligation to be met!

What kind of evidence would this be that they would need?

JCT: Given their decision, they did not ask for such
evidence or contradicted themselves. I'd rather believe
Couper lied or read their meaning into his words.
Does Krieger have -- have to do the whole case all over
again? Like, what possible evidence could they be asking
for, and why it would take a full hearing of three Judges to
lift an interlocutory order put on with no evidence by one
Judge.

JCT: Again, it's too silly to be credible.

And if they, in fact, did do this amazing thing the I would
like to see an order in writing where this is stated that
this is what they did. And if they're not able to produce
it, then I would ask for the -- the judgment of the Court to
give myself as the accused, the one facing incarceration,
the benefit of the doubt if the law is in any way ambiguous
and it's certainly ambiguous in this case and if it's not
ambiguous and it's dead, because the only written thing says
it's been struck down. Judge Acton, Court of Appeal, Supreme
Court of Canada struck down. None of them say anything about
a continuing suspension. And with that, madam, I think I
would -- I would conclude my arguments and perhaps a chance
to respond to Ms. Ozem if she has arguments to make.



--
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: Cornelssen examining Krieger Crown Scott Couper

Q: THE ACCUSED: Okay. The thing that struck me when I read
the -- the affidavits is that they appeared to be mirror
images of each other's. Mr. Iovinelli's affidavit and your
affidavit side by side, they're exactly the same other than,
of course, you know, the names. And like I say, a mirror
image of each other's.
Now, how were these affidavits produced? Like, did you
consult with Mr. Iovinelli and sit down and bring out your
journals and see, you know, how everything happened?
A: I didn't consult with Mr. Iovinelli with regard to the
specific preparation of these affidavits. I consulted with
Ms. Ozem but not with Mr. -- Mr. Iovinelli.
Q: So would it be -- would I be correct in assuming that
affidavits were prepared by Ms. Ozem and sent to you for
your signature?
A: Yes, yes.
Q: And same with Mr. Iovinelli?
A: Yes.
Q: Yes. Now, how is it that nobody noticed the mistake about
March 18th? It seems like an affidavit is a pretty important
thing.
A: It is.
Q: How -- how was it mistaken? What -- was there actually a
hearing on March the 18th?
A: No, there wasn't, sir.
Q: It was just written and handed down?
A: Yes. The -- the actual hearing of the appeal was on
December 4th of 2002.
Q: Yes.
A: The Court of Appeal panel delivered a judgment from the
Bench dismissing the appeal on that date, and the memorandum
of their judgment was delivered the next March 18th.
Q: March 18th. Yes. Now, in their -- in their memorandum
that they delivered they make no mention whatsoever of the
stay being extended.
A: Yes.
Q: And when I originally read that I thought, well, gee,
this December 4th of 2002 is because they've already written
up their memorandum and it's just been handed in -- you
know, was made after it was done and that's why it's not
written up. But then with the corrected affidavits then we
find that Iovinelli made his application on December the 4th
after the final judgment had been delivered, I assume, and
he noticed that there was no mention of the -- of the stay
in there, so he thought he'd better, you know, make
something out of it.
This is what -- what I don't understand is that the three
judges had three months to prepare their memorandum. Why do
they make no mention of this application?

JCT: Remember, if the stay pending appeal lasted beyond the
appeal, then Iovinelli was right to ask to have it lifted.
If the stay died with the Appellant's status, then it could
be not be entertained and had to be ignored.

A: I can't speak for the Court of Appeal, sir. But what I
can -- what I can tell you is at the end of the hearing, the
matter of whether or not the suspension ought to be lifted
was addressed.

JCT: The court addressed whether the lapsed suspension ought
to lifted?

It was brought up by Mr. Iovinelli. The Court of Appeal
panel declined at that time to deal with the application

JCT: They had no right to decline if it was still alive.

and in exchanges between counsel and the Bench the view of
the Court was expressed that in order to do that, in order
to address the issue of whether or not the suspension ought
to be lifted, it required a hearing with -- with evidence
being called.

JCT: It was the view of the court that it required a
hearing? Proof positive that the judges did not realize they
were discussing having a hearing over an order that they
were unaware had lapsed. Har har har har. Here's the proof
the judges thought the stay was still alive!!! Har har har.
Who'd have believed it? Maybe I don't...

Q: A full hearing --
A: Yes.
Q: -- with three Judges, yes.
A: Yes.

JCT: Seems pretty certain that something that had never been
done before, a hearing to lift an Appellant's stay when the
Appellant was no longer an Appellant, was going to have to
be done for the first time in history! Judges Wittmann,
Costigan and LoVecchio said there had to be a hearing to
lift the Appellant's stay after the Appellant was no longer
the Appellant. Har har har. Maybe not...

Q: Now, this is in spite of the fact that that extension was
granted by Judge O'Leary on very little evidence. And was it
not granted as an interlocutory motion?
A: Well, it was an interim motion, sir. It -- it was meant
to keep matters at the status quo in terms of the Section
7(1) of the CDSA remaining in force, and Mr. Krieger's
personal exemption remaining in force until further order of
the Court.

JCT: Until the appeal is what Couper had asked for and
"until the further order" is what he got. Now they claim
"until further Order" goes past the appeal.

Q: Could we review - we got from the Archives your written
submission on your application for the O'Leary hearing.
A: Yes.
Q: And I believe there's a copy there in front of you?
A: I don't have one in front of me, sir, unless it's in the
-- it doesn't appear to be in here.
Q: Now, I've highlighted a few of your comments here. This
is the written submission of the Crown Appellant on Chambers
application where you are applying for an extension to the
stay because it's about a week before December the 11th, and
Judge Acton's one-year stay is destined to run out. So
you're making this appeal to the -- to Judge O'Leary that
you be granted an extension. Would I be correct in saying
that?
A: Yes, my application to Justice O'Leary was to extend the
suspension ordered by Justice Acton beyond the one year -
beyond the one year period.
Q: Okay -
A: Past December 11th, though, which would have been the one
year anniversary of -- of her judgment.
Q: Of her decision?
A: Yes.
Q: Yes. Now, I see in your first line where you say the
appellant applies for an extension of the stay. Now, is it
not the fact your status as an appellant that gives you the
right to ask for a stay? If you were not appealing the case,
would you have any right to ask for the stay?

JCT: The crux of the issue is whether anyone had right to
ask for a stay or an appellant and what happens to a stay
when the appellant was no longer the appellant.

A: Well, I think the appellant would have a right to -- t
apply and that's what we were doing.
Q: Yes, because you were the appellant. But if you weren't
an appellant -- let's say you weren't appealing the case you
just wanted the stay extended and you're not appealing the
case.
A: Well, I can't --
Q: That would not be granted, would it?
A: I can't comment on that, sir. The fact -- the fact
remains that we were the appellant and --
Q: You were the appellant --
A: Yes.
Q: -- yes. So that -- that is your status.
A: Yes.

JCT: He hated to admit it but Max got him to.

Q: So on the bottom of the -- of the page we see the
appellant seeks an extension of the constitutional exemption
and suspension of the order, and I've highlighted, Until the
final disposition of this appeal.
A: Yes.

JCT: A stay pending the appeal to which the Appellant had a
right.

Q: Now, does that not mean that when the appeal is over, the
extension is over?
A: Yes.

JCT: Bingo. Gros lot. El Gordo. Jackpot.

If you look at page 10 of the -- of the brief however, sir,
under the title Relief Sought, I asked for an extension of
the period suspending the effect or enforcement of the Trial
Judge's order striking down Section 7(1) of the Controlled
Drugs and Substances Act from one year as originally
ordered, to until determination of the within appeal or
until further order of this Honourable Court. And similarly,
the same relief was asked for with respect to Mr. Krieger's
personal -- personal exemption. The order I prepared which
is exhibited to my affidavit, my first affidavit, was an
order that I prepared prior to my attendance in Chambers
that day. And I had specifically provided in the order for
Justice --- for Justice O'Leary's review, my request that
the stay last until further order of the Court.

JCT: No, stay until the appeal or further order. If the
further order was a more permanent stay, why didn't he ask
for "further order of the court or until the appeal?"

And that was what Justice O'Leary ordered.

JCT: He refused the maximum the Appellant had right to, stay
pending appeal, and gave him "until further order," more
than maximum?

Q: Yes. Well, in our reading of this we found that you've
asked for -- asked for it two different ways. You've asked
for it to be extended until the appeal, and you've asked for
that 18 times, until the appeal or six times that you add,
Or until further notice of the Court.
A: I don't -- I haven't gone through this to count so I
can't --
Q: No, and I realize that you can't and let -- let me just
quickly -- quickly read them because I've got them in --in
yellow here.
On page 3, Section 7(1) of the CDSA was invalid and thus
struck down. The Crown filed and served a notice of appeal,
this means that you are appealing for the extension because
you are the appellant. If you had not filed a notice of
appeal, there would be no basis to ask for an extension.
In other words, it's an interlocutory motion as I understand
it, to carry you over until the appeal is heard.
On page 5, The appellant seeks an order to extend the --
MS. OZEM: Excuse me --
Q: THE ACCUSED: -- one-year stay --
MS. OZEM: -- My Lady. The accused is trying to ask 18
questions in one question. If he, in fact, has 18 places
marked where he is alleging that Mr. Couper has, in fact,
made admissions he should ask him them one at a time so that
Mr. Couper can respond one at a time.
THE ACCUSED: Okay, I'll try to do better.
Q: THE ACCUSED: The appellant seeks an order to extend the
one-year stay.
THE COURT: Where are you in --
Q: THE ACCUSED: I'm on page 5. Now, the key word here I
believe is appellant and that it shows the status. That if
he were -- if the Crown were not the appellant, were not an
appellant, were not appealing, they would have no right to
ask for an extension of the stay to allow this appeal to be
heard and resolved. Further on the page --
THE COURT:  Mr. Cornelssen, if you have a question you
should -- you should put it to the --
THE ACCUSED: Okay, well --
THE COURT: -- witness because otherwise, I mean, you are -
THE ACCUSED: Let-- let -- let me ask the question.
THE COURT: -- making a comment but it is --
THE ACCUSED: Yeah.
THE COURT: -- you are getting no comment whatsoever from the
witness.
THE ACCUSED: Okay, okay.
THE ACCUSED: Mr. Couper, if you were not -- that the Crown
were not the appellant, would you had asked for an extension
of the stay?
A: Well, I can't say -- I can't say that. If we -- if there
was -
Q: Would you have had the right to ask for an extension of
the stay? Can you conceive of any circumstances where you
could ask for an extension of the stay if you were not the
appellant?
A: If we weren't the appellant?
Q: If we weren't the appellant.
A: It was a ---- it was -- it would be a -- it's the
appellant that has the right to ask for the stay.

JCT: Bingo. Gros lot. El Gordo. Jackpot.

Q: Precisely, precisely. It's your status as the appellant
that gives you the right to ask for the stay. Now, you point
out here that the Judge gets his authority to grant your
stay under Section 683(3) that says his rights are the same
as the civil appeal court. He gets his rights from the --
from the civil -- court civil appeals, is that correct?
THE COURT: Are you -- are you referring to another portion
of --
THE ACCUSED: The --
THE COURT: -- the written submissions?
Q: THE ACCUSED: In -- in Mr. Couper's document. And Mr.
Couper, if you can find it first, feel free to bring it up.
A: Are you referring to paragraph 10?
Q Could you read it to me, please?
A This Honourable Court's authority to extend the stay
derives from Section 686(3) of the Criminal code.
Q Yes, yes. That's what I'm referring to.
A All right.
Q Now, it seems to me that if you were not the appellant the
Judge would not have the power to grant that extension, is
that a correct interpretation of that?
A Well, it's -- it's -- it's triggered by an appeal.

JCT: JCT: Bingo. Gros lot. Jackpot. El Gordo. But it's hard
to accept that it expires with the appeal?

Q: Yes, yes --
A Yes.

JCT: JCT: Bingo. Gros lot. Jackpot. El Gordo.
Q: So no appeal, no right to grant an extension.
A: Yes.

JCT: JCT: Bingo. Gros lot. Jackpot. El Gordo.
Q: So you couldn't just walk in there and say, Gee, we
really didn't like that decision and we'd like it suspended
for some indefinite period. It depends upon the appeal?
A: Yes.

JCT: Har har har har. I'd forgotten how clearly Max won that
round.

Q: So my point is that when the appeal has been heard then
on December the 4th and a final judgment has been passed
down, that the appeal is ordered. A final order has been
issued, The appeal is over. Now, how can Mr. -- Judge
O'Leary's extension possibly last beyond the appeal?
A: Well, the order -- the order of Justice O'Leary is clear,
sir. It says until further order of the Court.

JCT: And the Final Order of the Court isn't "further?"

And on December 4th, 2002 when the appeal was heard the
Court -- the Court of Appeal declined to address the issue
of whether the suspension should stay or remain, preferring
instead that a full hearing be held to determine --

JCT: All three justices wanted a full hearing about an
appellant's stay once the appeal was over. Har har har har.
No wonder Justice Costigan didn't want to go into it with
Max at the last hearing. If it's true....

Q: Well, this --
A: -- to determine that.
Q: This is the way it's explained in the affidavit, but what
I don't understand is how when the Crown is no longer the
appellant, because when the appeal is over you're not the
appellant so you do not have a right to ask for an
extension. And the Judge, because you're no longer an
appellant, does not have the authority to give that
extension according to, you know, the law that you quoted a
moment ago.
A: Well, Justice O'Leary's order provides that --
Q: Up until the appeal --
A: -- that the Court --
Q: I totally --
A: --of Appeal.
Q: I totally agree. That the stay was suspended by Judge
Acton for one year, I agree. That Judge O'Leary extended it
until the appeal or until further order of the Court which I
take it to mean less than the appeal or whatever you'll give
me, but not beyond the appeal.

JCT: That's the crux of the issue.

MS. OZEM: Again My Lady, this isn't a debate with the
witness. If he has a question, let him ask a question and
let him let the witness respond.

JCT: He almost responded to the crux before the
interruption.

Q: THE ACCUSED: Well, my question is then, on what legal
basis does the Crown get an extension beyond the appeal,
when your right to an extension depends upon you being the
appellant and the Judge's power to grant that extension
depends upon you being the appellant and when the appeal is
over you are no longer the appellant?

A: Well, it's -- it's -- it's a matter of further relief
that can be dealt with by the -- by the Court of Appeal.

JCT: Until the official function is over, functus officio.

Justice O'Leary's order kept -- kept that alive.

JCT: Alive past when the court became functus officio? Not!

Q: Until the appeal.
A: Until further order of the Court.
Q: But the further order of Court when you were no longer
appellant.
A: The Court declined to deal with it on that particular
date, saying it should be brought on an application.

JCT: Incredible to think that the Court of Appeal would say
that. Really incredible. Really not credible.
So the appeal didn't die on that date, it -- it extended
with respect to that question only.

JCT: First time in Canadian history, no doubt?

Whether -- whether the suspension should be lifted or -- or
carry on.

JCT: Sounds like the court were under the impression that
one judge's ruling went on while three judges lost all their
power once functus officio.

Q: Wouldn't it be normal for you as the Crown, as the
appellant upon hearing the final order of the Court of
Appeal saying the law is struck down, to say that I would
like an extension. I would like this Court to give me a new
extension until the Superior or Supreme Court of Canada can
hear the ruling.

JCT: Which would have been the proper way to do it. We know
that when I asked to have the Hitzig resurrection stayed at
the Supreme Court of Canada, they told me to go ask the
Court of Appeal first. So a judge of either court could
grant a stay to the Applicant for Leave to Appeal. Why
didn't the Crown resort to the legal means to continue the
stay that had just become as functus officio as Justice
O'Leary was?

A: Well, Mr. Iovinelli made the application to lift the
suspension and the Court did not

JCT: "Please remove that pink elephant from the chair beside
you." "Get lost idiot," is the answer. "Since you did not
remove it, it must be still there."

-- declined to address it,

JCT: He was about to fall into the lie that Iovinelli had
told that the application had been dealt with and refused
but caught himself in time to tell the truth, that they
declined to address the ridiculous subject.

saying someone's going to have to bring an application
specifically to deal with that issue.

So the court did not refuse to entertain the application
because it was ridiculous to lift an expired stay, but
because the court said lifting a functus officio stay had to
be dealt with by a full panel. Har har har. Maybe not....

And none -- none has been made so the order is still in
effect.

JCT: The pink elephant was never removed and is still there.

Q: Even though the Crown is not the appellant anymore?
A: Well, the appeal -- that issue in the appeal is still
alive.
Q: Under what power does --
A: Well, because -- because of Justice O'Leary's order. It's
until further order of the Court.

JCT: Every lawyer knows that Order made pending an appeal
last past the appeal. It's us stupid lay-people who think
ending the appeal ends the court's power. Actually, it's
probably the first time in Canadian history that it has been
argued that the Order of a Court goes after it became
functus officio.

Q: Which normally means or what the Court will give us.
Until the appeal, you ask 18 times. Until further order of
the Court, you ask six times. I believe your expectation was
that O'Leary's suspension would last until the appeal. But
when the appeal is over, how can the previous Judge's stay
still be in effect? Would not these three Judges have to say
we grant you an extension until the Supreme Court of Canada
can hear this?
A: No, they were -- they were silent on whether -- on that
question as I said,

JCT: They were silent on whether the stay was still in
effect? After Iovinelli had raised the issue? Righteously if
it was still alive, idiotly if it was functus officio too.

indicating that there would have to be a further application
with evidence.

JCT: This I find incredible, that the court would have said
it took another application. Didn't they know that it was
going to be a first in history? Incredible. Not credible.
Can't wait for Max to ask them at his current Appeal.

The evidence would show what -- what changes were made to
the regulatory scheme between the time Mr. Krieger was
charged back in August of 1999 to the -- to the date of the
appeal.

JCT: The court said that changes made to the regulatory
scheme since he was charged and up to the appeal would have
to be examined by the courts? Incredible....

Q: Well, then why wouldn't they put this in their
memorandum, being such an important -- like, I'm facing life
imprisonment, 150,000 people have been arrested under this
law since that time. Why is not down in writing that this
stay is still in effect, because they make no mention of it.

JCT: Har har har har. Did Iovinelli righteously apply to
lift a stay that survived the appeal and they wrongly
refused to entertain his legitimate application? Or did he
wrongly apply to lift a stay that was functus officio with
the end of the court of appeal's power and they rightly
refused to entertain his ridiculous request? But since he
says they suggested it took a hearing to lift the stay, he's
testifying they thought it was alive too and wrong refused
to address his legitimate request. Maybe not...

THE COURT: Mr. Cornelssen, you have already asked that
question and --
THE ACCUSED: And he's already --
THE COURT: -- he has already responded and he cannot get
into the mind of the Court of Appeal.
Q: THE ACCUSED: Is it possible -- is it possible that the
reason they did not act to lift the suspension on Mr.
Iovinelli's application, the fact that they knew that they
did not have the power or the need to do it because it had
expired with the end of the appeal?
A: I - - 1 can't --

JCT: It has to be no since he says the court said it would
take another hearing.

MS. OZEM: Objection. He can't -- the witness isn't psychic,
he can't anticipate what was in the minds of the Court of
Appeal unless it was a matter of stated record, or unless it
was a matter specifically discussed at the hearing.
THE COURT: Mr. Cornelssen, this witness is here to testify
to facts. He is not here to debate the law with you or to
try to get inside the minds of Court of Appeal Judges. He
cannot.
THE ACCUSED: No. But unfortunately we're in a position where
the only evidence that this stay is in effect is the
affidavits of these two gentlemen.
THE COURT: I agree.

JCT: How true. Only their affidavit says the court said a
hearing was needed to lift the stay that had lapsed.

THE ACCUSED: And 150,000 people have been arrested under
this depending entirely on that, and people's memories can
fail and as we saw, there was an error made in the date.
Both of them made the same error. Both of them corrected it
at the same time. The original one gave them an excuse for
not -- for not appearing. Well, it wasn't -- you know, it
was already typed up and written up, but if it was decided
on December the 4th, then that's where Mr. Iovinelli made
this phantom application, because I have no evidence of it
other than these affidavits which are, you know, stand
corrected.

JCT: It's not Iovinelli's application which they refused to
entertain if it is ridiculous that is incredible, it's their
saying it needed to be entertained by another panel that I
find not credible.

Then why does it not appear in this March 18th memorandum
that the Judges wrote up.

JCT: Always a good point. They refused to entertain it and
refused to mention it too.

It's so important and they make no mention of it whatsoever.
And I face life imprisonment for a law that's not written
down, that depends on the affidavits of Crown lawyers who
are certainly not disinterested parties. For that matter,
Iovinelli is not a disinterested party and when we have a
chance to talk to him I'll ask him but --you know, he might
have to return clients' fees for the last three years if the
law's actually been dead and he knew it, and he continues to
try to get them off one at a time and he could have just
said it's not there. So they're not disinterested parties
and it's the only evidence that the stay is in effect are
those affidavits.
THE COURT: I understand your argument, Mr. Cornelssen. Do
you have any more questions for this witness?
THE ACCUSED: I believe that's -- that's all that I need to -
- to -- to ask. I haven't received what I believe to be an
answer, and maybe I'm asking the wrong person. Maybe I
should be asking Your Honour if an interlocutory motion has
ever been known to extend beyond the appeal. How it can by
definition and if that --

JCT: Har har har. She's pinned by the crux issue.




--
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 all remember how shocked we were last November when
Alberta Superior Court Madam Justice Donna C. Read ruled
that Max would be prosecuted in Alberta despite the O'Leary
stay being an interim Order so that the Acton invalidation
of the s.7(1) prohibition on marijuana cultivation did take
effect. But since the MMAR had only been proven to have
failed by the Ontario Court of Appeal, it wasn't binding on
her since it had to have been declared invalid in each and
every province too, and so, the prohibition had not become
invalid because the MMAR was presumed to have saved the CDSA
prohibition despite it's factual having been proven in
Ontario! It made us want to puke, moreso because we don't
know the author of the travesty. Justice Read apologized in
advance of reading her decision for perhaps having trouble
reading what she had written down! We all know how taking
dictation in a hurry is tough to read! We could empathize.

No. 041076274Q1
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- v -
MAX LEONARD CORNELSSEN Accused

PROCEEDINGS
Edmonton, Alberta 16th November, 2005
Transcript Management Services
5th Fl North, 10365 - 97 Street Edmonton, AB (780) 427-6181

Proceedings taken in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta,
Law Courts Building, Edmonton, Alberta
November 16, 2005 2:00 P.M.     Session

The Honourable Justice Read
Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta

G. Ozem, Ms. For the Crown
(NO COUNSEL) For the Accused
S. Smithies Court Clerk

THE COURT: Good afternoon, please be seated.
MS. OZEM: Good afternoon, My Lady.
THE COURT: Thank you. Please be seated. Okay, we have an
application by Mr. Cornelssen this afternoon.
THE ACCUSED: Yes, ma'am.
THE COURT: And we are going to hear it. I have had
voluminous materials provided to me and I have had an
opportunity to read them. So I am, I think, up to speed in
terms of what the parties have provided on paper. I think we
have perhaps one preliminary issue to deal with before we
get into the meat of the argument, and that is the fact that
there were two affidavits filed by the Crown, one yesterday
and one today. These two affidavits, one by Mr. Iovinelli
and one by Mr. Couper, both corrected one part of an -- of
earlier affidavits that each had sworn, correcting a date in
each case. The date in the original affidavits was incorrect
so the affidavits that have now been filed, and they were
filed late obviously and by fiat which I granted, one
yesterday and one today, simply correct that date. So I
think the first issue is, because I know you did not consent
to this, Mr. Cornelssen. Are you taking any issue with --
with the fact that these affidavits were filed?
THE ACCUSED: No, madam, although I would like to address the
subject when I talk to the witness, Mr. Couper.
THE COURT: Oh, okay. So you will cross-examine --
THE ACCUSED:Yes.
THE COURT:- in respect to --
THE ACCUSED: Yes.
THE COURT: Fair enough. Are there any other preliminary
matters that we need to deal with before we get started?
MS. OZEM: One other preliminary matter, My Lady. At
approximately 3:45 on November 14th I was served with a
notice of motion returnable for today's date this afternoon,
together with an affidavit signed by Mr. Cornelssen
containing new materials. I don't know if the Court has
those.
THE COURT: I may not. These things do not make it to the
file very quickly and I do not have those -- they have not
made it to my file yet. I have no knowledge of these.
MS. OZEM: I would just bring to the Court's attention at
this time that I had become aware prior to November the 8th
that the accused had come into possession of materials that
he was intending to rely on with respect to today's motion.
Accordingly, on November the 8th I faxed to him a letter
which is confirmed as being received, that had he intended
to rely on any further materials, that he must attend before
a Justice and obtain the consent of the Court by way of a
fiat in order to file materials in order to have them appear
before the Court and in -- in order to have the Court
consider those matters for this hearing.
Despite the fact that I had sent that letter to him and told
him that he required the consent of the Court in order to
file those materials, that letter incidentally being sent on
November the 8th, I was instead served with this notice of
motion with respect for a request for late filing or
permission to file materials past the deadline, together
with the affidavit containing the materials in question. As
I say, I was served at approximately 3:45 on November the
14th. Mr. Cornelssen is aware from previous experience that
fiats are required. In fact, he had to obtain one on August
the 29th in order to serve me with a notice of motion
returnable that date for a court appearance that we had. So
I just wish this put on the record because there has been a
consistent repeated pattern wherein I'm getting served with
documents beyond deadlines that do not have fiats. It would
be one thing if he had the Court's consent to do this,
however, with respect to the materials that are contained
within his affidavit, I've had the chance to review them.
Quite frankly, they are of no concern to me and I'm prepared
to proceed regardless.
But I just wish to give him full notice at this time that if
this happens again, the Court (sic) will be objecting to any
of those materials being brought before the Court or being
considered by the Court. He was given notice by me in
writing on the 8th and still chose to disregard that notice.
THE COURT: Does the notice of motion set out application for
other relief, other than what I thought was before me today?
MS. OZEM: Well, the abridgment of -- no, the abridgment of
time with respect --
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. OZEM: -- to ex -- the extension of the --
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. OZEM: -- deadline and the filing of the materials.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Cornelssen, do you have any
comment with respect to that?
THE ACCUSED: First of all, that I'm afraid I --
THE COURT: We normally stand when we are speaking -
THE ACCUSED: I'm sorry.
THE COURT:-- that way I can tell who is talking.
THE ACCUSED: Okay. My fax machine broke down and I've been
using a third party's fax, and they haven't been quite as
reliable on phoning me when a fax came in as it could be and
I do not recall that fax that she -- that she speaks of. But
we did file documents that we received from the Archives in
Calgary that we did not receive until after the filing
deadline, and could not have possibly put them in
beforehand. And as far as for getting a fiat and seeing a
Judge beforehand, it's considerably easier for the Crown to
do that than it is for me because I live 30 miles out in the
country, and I'm afraid I didn't ask permission to file that
late but I did put in a motion of order requesting
permission to so. And if the Crown is willing to accept this
material from the Archives that I've filed late, and I would
ask if the Court has a copy of this.
THE COURT: I do not have a copy on the file and I am hoping
you have an extra copy. The Crown obviously is prepared to
go ahead notwithstanding --
THE ACCUSED: Yes.
THE COURT: -- but obviously if you want to rely on this
material, it would be very helpful if I had a copy.
THE ACCUSED: Well, then --
THE COURT: It will be somewhere in the filing downstairs,
but it has not made the file yet. That is one of the reasons
we establish deadlines, is because of these kinds of
difficulties.
THE ACCUSED: Yes.
THE COURT: You know, it is a big operation down in the
Clerk's Office and it takes days sometimes for things to get
on a file.
THE ACCUSED: I did take copies up to the Trial Coordinator's
office and I thought maybe that would - at first I didn't
have them but -- What that would be, madam, would be --
THE COURT: Are you going to be able to proceed now? Is this
your only copy?
THE ACCUSED: No, I have an extra copy.
THE COURT: Oh good, okay.
THE ACCUSED: That was the copy I was going to give to Mr.
Couper, but I have a third copy that I could give.
THE COURT: Okay, thank you. All right, well, Mr. Cornelssen,
you are going to have to guide me by the hand a bit through
this new material because I have not read it but I have read
everything else. So, go for it.

*Argument
THE ACCUSED: Okay. Now, would madam prefer, I could read my
original application, or would you just like me to -- to
summarize it, try to get to the crux of the matter as soon
as possible?
THE COURT: Yes, I -- as I said, I have read it so you do not
need to read it again to me.
THE ACCUSED: It's -- and it is --
THE COURT: It would be helpful if you would summarize it and
what I would like you to start with is clearly telling me
what it is you are seeking today, and then go on to explain
why it is I should give it to you. Okay.
THE ACCUSED: Well, what I'm seeking today is a recognition
by the Court that Section 7(1) was struck down by Judge
Acton in the year 2001.
THE COURT: You are talking about the Controlled -
THE ACCUSED: Yeah, I --
THE COURT: -- Substances and Drugs Act?
THE ACCUSED: -- I'm sorry, yes, of the CDSA -
THE COURT: Okay.
THE ACCUSED: -- in regards to cultivation. And we have
specifically limited our application just to Section 7{1) to
make it as simple as possible, rather than bringing in
Section 4, Section 5 which we feel are also being quashed by
the implication or are no longer ii effect. If 7(1) is gone,
then Section S4 regarding possession --
THE COURT: Okay. Now, as I understand it, the charges that
you are facing at the moment are under Section 7(1) and
under Section 5(2).
THE ACCUSED: 5(2), yes.
THE COURT: Both of the CDSA.
THE ACCUSED: Yes.
THE COURT: So am I to understand what you are saying, is
that you -- the application you are making is with respect
to both charges.
THE ACCUSED: No, just Section 7(1) for simplicity sake.
THE COURT: Oh, okay, okay. I am sorry --
THE ACCUSED: Although it has been admitted by the Crown that
if it's legal to cultivate it, then obviously it must be
legal to possess.
THE COURT: Okay, so you are seeking a declaration from me in
respect only to --
THE ACCUSED: For 7(1).
THE COURT: -- the charge under Section 7(1)?
THE ACCUSED: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE ACCUSED: Yes.
THE COURT: And the declaration you are seeking is that the
charges against -- that that charge against you should be
quashed.
THE ACCUSED: Well, which -- to recognize that the law is
dead and that the charges should be quashed against me
because the law is dead, and also for everyone else who's
been charged since that time. In fact, as I understand it,
if the law has been declared unconstitutional and Judge
Acton did strike it down as being unconstitutional, the
Court of Appeal and Judges Wittmann, Costigan and LoVecchio
on December the 4th, 2002 upheld Judge Acton's decision to
strike down Section 7(1) and the law is officially dead at
this point. And only Parliament can enact a new law, and so
far they have not done so.
THE COURT: Okay, so you are arguing and I understand that
you are arguing about the Krieger case.
THE ACCUSED: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE ACCUSED: Yes, ma'am. So --
THE COURT: We are trying to create a record here as well as
-- I mean, you and I both know what we are talking about but
I would like you to explain just on the record what it is
that you are talking about, because otherwise if you ever
get a transcript of this it is going to be --
THE ACCUSED: It's going to be --
THE COURT: -- quite incomprehensible.
THE ACCUSED: -- very, very confusing. But I'm going to try
to summarize as best I can. I have my original application
here but --
THE COURT: Okay.
THE ACCUSED: -- you have read it --
THE COURT: I have.
THE ACCUSED: -- and it's important but I don't -- I believe
that the crux of the matter, and I do believe the Crown
agrees with me on this. It's going to come down to whether
the suspension that was originally put on by Judge Acton
extended by Judge O'Leary, if that is still in effect after
the Court of Appeal. So if I could summarize briefly to get
to that point. Judge Acton struck it down and said it's
unconstitutional to prevent sick people from getting their
medicine. It's a violation of Mr. Krieger's rights and
everyone else's rights under the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, which is the supreme law of the land. Now, when
it's appealed to the Court of Appeal they upheld Judge
Acton's striking down of Section 7, and as far as I see it
from my point of view and from -- it's dead at this point.
She struck it down, the Alberta Court of Appeal agreed and
struck it down. Now, where the point of contention is, is --
and then it went on to the Supreme Court of Canada on the
23rd of December, 2003 and the Supreme Court of Canada
dismisses the Crown's appeal. Makes no mention whatsoever of
there being a suspension on it, it says the law is dead.
Now, Mr. Frankel (phonetic). Crown Prosecutor David Frankel
in a memorandum to the Supreme Court of Canada makes the
statement that Section 7(1) has been struck down by the
highest Court of Alberta as having no force and effect, and
if the stay were vacated which it could be at any time, then
there would be no prohibition against cultivation of
marijuana in Alberta. Now, this is the statement of S. David
Frankel and I believe that it's also quoted by the Crown, so
I think we're in agreement up to this point and what it
comes down to is, is the stay still in effect. Now, to
address that and when Mr. Couper is able to answer
questions, we'll get into it in --
THE COURT: Well, if you would like to call Mr. Couper now, I
think that might be -- it might be an appropriate time --
THE ACCUSED: It might be a good -- good --
THE COURT: -- to deal with that because I think his evidence
relates to the issue of the stay.
THE ACCUSED: Yes, because it comes -- it comes down to --
perhaps if I could just summarize briefly as what -- what I
feel the facts are and I stand to be corrected if I -- if I
have them wrong. But what the Crown -- what Mr. -- well,
what both affidavits state is in their original affidavit
they state that on March 18th after the judgment was handed
down, that they noticed that no mention had been made of the
stay. And defence attorney LoVecchio makes a motion at that
time that we lift the suspension and the Crown dismisses it.
Now, there's no --
THE COURT: The Crown or the Court?
THE ACCUSED: Or the Court -- the Court dismisses it, yes.
And there is no record of this in the memorandum that the
Court gave on the 18th of March. There's no record of it
whatsoever and yet it's so important. How -- how could this
be? Now, on the original affidavits that they filed, it said
that he made this application on the 18th of March. I took
that as an explanation, well, this is why it's no-written in
their memorandum, because they already had the memorandum
all written up and that's why it doesn't show. But then we
get the corrected affidavits and we find out that Mr.
LoVecchio -- am I pronouncing that name right?
MS. OZEM: No.
THE ACCUSED: No.
THE COURT: Sorry?
THE ACCUSED: Please correct me.
MS. OZEM: Iovinelli.
THE ACCUSED: Iovinelli, right. Sorry, I've confused him with
a Judge in the Appeal Court, I do believe. Iovinelli.
Iovinelli, I do -- I do believe would be the correct
pronunciation. But did Mr. Iovinelli -- made his application
on December the 4th. After the final decision of the Court
has come down and they hadn't mentioned the stay, he moved
to have the stay lifted and the Court dismissed his appeal.
And yet there was no mention of this in the memorandum that
comes out on March the 18th. And I'm forced to wonder now,
the judges had three months to prepare that memorandum. How
could they have not mentioned this dismissed application?
And our point is that -- that the stay was an interlocutory
stay and that it was granted on the basis to carry it over
until the appeal. Now, I realize it says until the further
order of the Court, but this is kind of an add-on. To my
mind it means, until the appeal or whatever else you can
give us but that it cannot go past the appeal because it's
an interlocutory motion and by definition, dies when the
appeal is over. And this is what I would like to examine
this Mr. Couper on, to see if it was an interlocutory motion
that he made and what reason he would have not to ask for a
formal stay of effect until the Supreme Court could hear it.
It would seem to me that that would be the appropriate way
to go, and yet he did not do that. He sat silent and went
with Iovinelli's application to have it lifted when in
effect, it was -- died and there was nothing left to lift.
Now, I don't know if I've explained that very well but --
THE COURT: No, you have explained it very well, I understand
perfectly well what you are talking about.

JCT: Seems pretty clear except to Crowns Frankel and Ozem.

THE ACCUSED: Okay.
THE COURT: It seems to me that it might be an appropriate
time now to deal with Mr. Cornelssen (sic). He has been --
he's a Crown witness -
THE ACCUSED: Yes.
THE COURT: -- he is not yours and it is a bit out of order
to be putting him up when you are making your argument,
except that my understanding is, and you can correct me if I
am wrong, Ms. Ozem, that the evidence that the Crown seeks
to offer is contained within the affidavit or the aff-- both
affidavits, and that really you have no questions for this
witness. And that he is only being offered for the purposes
of cross-examination, am I correct?
MS. OZEM: Well, I wish to make it clear, I did not subpoena
him, the accused subpoenaed him.
THE COURT: I understand that.
MS. OZEM: He's the accused's witness.
THE COURT: But you agreed to have him --
MS. OZEM: The accused is -- the accused is free to cross --
well, first of all I should point out that the subpoenas
were illegally produced or illegally served on the witness.
JCT: Neat eh? Wrongly done but done nonetheless.

I've spoken to the witness about this, the witness is
prepared to waive that irregularity, as am I but for this
occasion only. With respect to the procedure, ma'am, it
would be my contention that Mr. Cornelssen is free to cross-
examine Mr. Couper on the affidavit, however, I would
reserve my right to re-examine on anything that arises out
of his cross-examination.
THE COURT: Fair enough.
THE ACCUSED: Could I ask why you feel the subpoenas were
illegally served?
MS. OZEM: Because the Criminal Code of Canada requires that
a peace officer or someone specially designated serve the
subpoena. You are not specially designated and you're not a
peace officer.

JCT: Aha. He did it himself instead of having it done! Ha.

THE ACCUSED: Well, this is at variance with what the Clerk
of the Court told me but --
THE COURT: Clerks of the Court are not legally trained --
THE ACCUSED: Yes.
THE COURT: -- they are practically trained and they -- you
know, they are certainly well versed in being clerks of the
court, but I think it is always dangerous to take legal
advice from the clerks of the court.
THE ACCUSED: Well, I will take that under consideration for
future subpoenas.
THE COURT: Are you ready now to cross-examine Mr. --
THE ACCUSED: I believe I am.
THE COURT: -- Couper? Okay. I am going to ask then for Mr.
Couper to come forward. Thank you very much for coming
today. I know that you have waived this subpoena
irregularity and I do appreciate your appearing today. Could
you swear the witness, please.

*SCOTT ANDREW COUPER, Sworn, Cross-examined by the Accused
THE COURT: Mr. Couper, just for the record before this
cross-examination begins, could you explain what your
position is, what your job is and what dealings you have had
with anything that comes before the Court today?

A: Yes, My Lady. I am currently Crown counsel employed with
the Department of Justice Canada in the Calgary office. I
have been so employed with the Calgary office since October
of 1998. There before, I was employed as Crown counsel with
the same department in the Northwest Territories.
My involvement that brings me here to court today
essentially involves the matter of Regina v. Grant Wayne
Krieger, where Mr. Krieger was charged in August of 2 --of
1999 with -- with one count of production of cannabis
marijuana and one count of possession of cannabis marijuana
for the purposes of trafficking.
I was the assigned Crown in that matter. I followed the
matter through, there was a Charter hearing before Madam
Justice Acton in October of 2000, wherein she gave a
judgment in December of 2000. I was also counsel on the
matter before the Court of Appeal. The appeal was -- was
heard in December of 2002.
THE COURT: Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Cornelssen.
Q: THE ACCUSED: Thank you for appearing here today, Mr.
Couper.
A: You're welcome.
Q: With respect to the original affidavit that you've got,
where it was stated that March 18th was the day that -- in
question where the application to -- that the -- that the
stay was made -
A: Yes.
Q: Now, I -- when I received your affidavit and Mr.
Iovinelli's affidavit -
A: Before you go on, sir, may I see a copy of the affidavit?
I believe I may have left one with Ms. Ozem. Thank you.
MS. OZEM: The original one or your supplemental?
A: The supplemental.
THE COURT: Perhaps we could put both before him right now
just so that he has both -- both affidavits. Thank you.
A: Sorry to interrupt.
THE COURT: Okay, just make sure he is clear as to which one
you are talking about when --
THE ACCUSED: Which one I'm talking about --
THE COURT: -- you ask him questions.
THE ACCUSED: -- yes.
MS. OZEM: Do you have both, Mr. Couper?
A: Yes, I do, thank you.
THE COURT: Okay, go ahead.

[Continued...



--
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: [ijccr] Digest Number 1288
>Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 01:48:22 -0000
>From: "kevinparcell" <kevinparcell@...>
>Subject: Re: TURMEL: SunMoney: A new Combination Economy

KP: Thank you for your response. I appreciate that you've
worked long and hard to promote your UNILETS concept because
you believe that it can do good. I wish you the best with
your work. Your imagined dialogue with me below doesn't
present any arguments for UNILETS, much less offer any
meaningful criticism of SunMoney (as distinguished from
description and mere assertion), so I'm unable to respond.

JCT: Here are the issues I raised to which you are unable to
respond:

1) How does this new global solution differ from UNILETS?
2) What causes the irresponsible exploitation symptom?
3) Why should discounting with cc be necessary?
4) Why try to fix the problems of small systems when the big
one has no problem?
5) What is fiat cc mentioned 3 times?
6) How is anonymity the fundamental problem?
7) Is currency value by tacit agreement or mortgaged
collateral?
8) Why "Better Local Currency" than adopt perfect global
currency?

KP: However, if you, or anyone, should decide to read about
Combination Economies and offer your help through support or
meaningful criticism, I will be grateful and try to respond
meaningfully.

JCT: I posted my meaningful criticisms to which you were
unable to respond.

KP: Meanwhile, I hope that no one mistakes your message
below for an actual exchange of ideas, and that no one is
discouraged by it from learning about this new strategy.
Kevin Parcell

JCT: I posted it so they would be discouraged from spending
time on something which you can't validate?

KP: P.s.  The imagined dialogue created below inadvertantly
misquotes the previous postings.  Please refer to those for
a better understanding.  Thanks. kjp

JCT: There was no imagined dialogue. I criticised your post
and you are unable to respond to those criticisms.

>Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 13:58:11 -0000
>From: "kevinparcell" <kevinparcell@...>
>Subject: Re: Sun Money

KP: Combination economies are not utopian, such as we see
with strategies aimed at reforming global currency...

JCT: So with the utopian UNILES strategy aimed at reforming
global currency, why bother reforming local ones?

>Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 21:20:33 -0000
>From: "kevinparcell" <kevinparcell@...>
>Subject: Re: SunMoney

KP: There's all the difference in the world between utopian
visions of a transformed global currency backed by genuine
value (silver, energy, whatever)...

JCT: He forgot the most important one, human time.

KP: I do support the reform of global currency, but only as
a partial solution.

JCT: You consider the global solution only partial? Why? You
presume problems in the system will continue? Anyway, my
point is that you should not be professing on important
systems engineering topics when you haven't mastered the
basics. Just look at who supports it?




--
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 must admit that pseudo-Socred Bill Ryan has forced me
to make an amendment to my advanced banking system
engineering analysis that has successfully stood unchallenged
for the past quarter century. It's the same "mistake" I
already addressed but didn't bother amending until now.

Back in August of last year, I wrote:

>JCT: Ryan finds The Engineer's great mistake???

>Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 09:50:58 -0700 (PDT)
>From: "William B. Ryan" <w_b_ryan@...>
>Subject: Re: The Cheat

>WR: This is the statement from this phony "engineer":

"JCT:Both zero and negative feedback are acceptable while
positive feedback is always unacceptably unstable."
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/bankmath.htm

JCT: I pointed out that because positive feedback is
sometimes desirable to make things explode exponentially
doesn't make it always desirable or ever ever desirable in
banking systems engineering. But it's true, despite the fact
that the topic is "banking systems engineering," I should
have been more precise for those like Ryan who tend to
forget.

Still, I've beaten up his brain so badly over the years that
he is fixated on this one failure to repeat that the topic
is banking systems engineering and has gotten to posting
this comment on every one of my public posts:

>Article #89007 (89007 is last):
>From: w_b_ryan@...
>Newsgroups: can.legal, alt.drugs, sci.econ, sci.engr,
alt.conspiracy
>Subject: Pops up the Nutter
>Date: 19 Feb 2006 13:18:24 -0800

I find it hard to believe that a person could go
through any sort of "electrical engineering"
curriculum, even the most rudimentary technology
course, and make statements as absurd as this:

"Both zero and negative feedback are acceptable while
positive feedback is always unacceptably unstable."
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/bankmath.htm

The most introductory student learns about the
utilization of "positive feedback" that
revolutionized communications, and made the very
computers we use to compose and read these e-messages
ultimately possible.  From a standard text:
"Edwin Howard Armstrong enrolled in electrical
engineering at Columbia, and in 1913, while still an
undergrad, made his first great discovery,
regeneration...Armstrong discovered that the gain of
a triode amplifier could be enormously increased by
feeding some of the amplifier output back into the
input, i.e. by using positive feedback. Given enough
feedback, the amplifier became a stable and powerful
oscillator, perfect for driving radio transmitters.
Given a little less feedback, the amplifier became a
more sensitive radio receiver than anything else at
the time."

JCT: Of course, I did respond last year that though
exponential growth is often desirable when you want
explosive growth, only zero feedback LETS service charges
and negative feedback demurrage charges are acceptable.

Anyway, in order to amend The Engineer's great mistake found
by Bill Ryan, I've amended my bankmath site
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/bankmath.htm to now read:
"Both zero and negative feedback are acceptable while
positive feedback is always unacceptably unstable in banking
systems engineering." For those like Ryan who forget what of
engineering I am professing in. Har har har har.

Just for the therapeutic value of exposing Ryan's lunacy, I
cite a few good laughs I found in the last post.

>>WR: It is utter mischaracterization to describe interest
as "feedback" in any sense but informationally back to
entrepreneurs, in that it is a subset of the larger
category of profit in the system of entrepreneurial
profit and loss.

>JCT: Har har har har. So this means that not only does Ryan
not know about feedback, he doesn't know about the
differential equations for feedback. And it's in my analysis
so I can use the piece he says is wrong to prove my point. I
don't mind giving people a little taste of high-tech math so
here's the differential equation for the growth of your bank
balance over time from the Laplace Transform 1/(s-i).

The change (d) in your bank balance (B) over the change (d)
in time (t) equals interest (i) times your bank balance (B),
right? The differential equation for that simple exponential
growth of your bank account, whether positive or is negative
is dB/dt = iB.

At i=10%, if your balance is (-10), the change is
10% * (-10) = -1. So the control system makes positive
balances grow more positive and negative balances more
negative so that to those who have abundance will more be
given and from those who have no abundance, even what they
have will be taken away. That's how Jesus explains interest.

So dB/dt = iB means that the change in your balance over
time is equal to the interest times your Balance. What's
hard. That's what happens. That's reality.

The Laplace transform of that whole differential equation is
1/(s-i) which generates exponential growth.

With negative feedback, your positive balance starts to
drain down and your negative balance starts to rise up.

With no feedback, your positive balance stays the same, like
LETS, and your negative balance stays the same too.

Positive feedback causing exponential growth is called an
instability because you can't divide by zero. Dividing by
zero pushes the result to infinity, an impossibility.

When s equals the interest rate +i, then the denominator is
(+i - i) = 0 causing the function to rise to infinity. In
this case, engineers say that the pole is in the right hand
plane with the instability taking place at s=i.

That's why exponential growth of debt is stupid. And Ryan
says that I'm completely wrong because exponential growth of
signal is sometimes desirable, though always with a turn-off
switch. I can't imagine wanting an explosive function with
no cut off unless it's something really good that's growing.
I'd love for health technology to grow exponentially. It
does. All good things do. But building it into an accounting
system is insane.

So finally, Ryan's point is to ignore my declaiming danger
in exponential debt because there's exponential signals are
sometimes wanted. Ignore the general danger because of the
occasional benefit in another field? So Ryan would have
everyone ignore my whole analysis against positive feedback
on debt because positive feedback in signals is sometimes
useful. That's it. He's a nut. Read my debates with him at
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/ryan00.htm

>WR: Taking an irrelevant block diagram from electronics or
hydraulics and labeling something as "interest" tells
us nothing about interest whatsoever. The phony quack
"engineer" with his crank irrelevant diagram.

>JCT: I bet no engineer will say my blueprint of the 1/s or
1/(s-i) control system is wrong. Ryan will now back down and
shut up.

JCT: Except after backing down once again from my bet, he
didn't shut up and declaims that he doesn't know that we
were talking about banking systems engineering but all
engineering.

>WR: Con-man, pure and simple.

>JCT: So far, other than his "positive feedback is sometimes
useful in electronics so it's useful in banking too," is his
only point.

JCT: And it's still wrong. Har har har.

>WR: Just take one example from today's post, the bowl and
upside down bowl as supposedly telling us something about
"feedback."

>JCT: I always thought it was a great analogy. If it's on an
even plane (always barring friction) and you give the ball a
pulse of energy, it moves along at a constant speed.

If it's in a bowl, it rises one side of the bowl and gravity
works on it to slow it down and pull it back. Due to
friction, it will go up the other side a little less and
then gravity will pull it back, and forth and back until it
settles back to it's initial state. That's why negative
feedback is so useful. Something knocks you off target and
the farther off target you are knocked, the stronger the
feedback generated to bring it back to on.

Finally, if it's on the inverted bowl, the ball accelerates
due to gravity with its velocity equal to (at^2)/2 where
a=32 feet/sec^2. After 1 second, 16 feet per second, after 2
seconds, 64 feet per second, 3 seconds, 144 feet per
second... Barring air resistance, it grows and grows.

I think these are wonderful analogies of zero, negative and
positive feedback. And Bill Ryan's only criticism is that
positive feedback is sometimes desirable?

>WR: The example has nothing to do with feedback whatsoever.
The man is just an ignoramus spouting complete nonsense:
The bowl is an example of stable equilibrium; the upside
down bowl an example of unstable equilibrium. That's all.
"Feedback" doesn't enter the matter at all.

>JCT: I think it's pretty obvious that two forces are at
play, the pulse and the feedback of gravity. Geez it's easy
correcting this lunatic.

>WR: It tells us something about equilibrium, not feedback.
It is an illustration about equilibrium that has been
utilized by physics and chemistry teachers for centuries.
And he claims he invented it!

>JCT: The gravity acted as the feedback. What's hard to
understand. The gravity either took away from the speed of
the ball or it added to the speed of the ball. What's hard
except to a nut like Ryan. Again, check our debates and see
how many times I corrected him with no response out of him.
How many times I bet him and he backed down.

>WR: Like I said, it's deja vu all over again.  I answered
his bowl scam two or three years ago, and here we see it
again, repeated again verbatim by this cheat, this putrid
card sharpe.

>JCT: I guess he answered it no better then than he did now.

>WR: Even this example from today's post is such complete
nonsense that even the most rudimentary technician
wouldn't make: the example of the speaker "blowing."
No, no, no Turmel!  The "sequel" is an equilibrium at
constant frequency and volume. The speaker "blows"
only if it is uunderrated for the amplifier to which it
is attached if the volume knob is turned too high. If
it blows it would have blown regardless whether or not
the signal is a sequel.

>JCT: So all those people who keep their mikes away from the
speakers to avoid the positive feedback don't know what
they're doing? I think it's a beautiful example of feedback.
The signal issued by the mike is amplified and emitted by
the speaker which is picked up by the mike and amplified and
emitted by the speaker which is... Why does this analogy of
positive feedback not get through Ryan's brain? Almost
everyone else I've ever explained it too knows about
speakers and mikes.

>WR: All electronic music, beginning with the Moog
synthesizer and similar instruments invented more than
half a century ago and continued today in digital
devices, utilize positive feedback to generate
"sequels" of varying frequencies and tonalities.

>JCT: And so, positive feedback on debts must be pretty
useful too?

>WR: I don't think the man has completed even a basic
electronics course. He couldn't have.

>JCT: I bet I got an A in Fourth Year Electronics? Does
"never bet" Ryan wanna bet?

>Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 10:18:18 -0700 (PDT)
>From: "William B. Ryan" <w_b_ryan@...>
>Subject: Re: the hate-filled

>WR: Of course, you too have amply demonstrated in previous
postings that you are one of the paranoiac little pissants
who are hate-filled against Western institutions and
especially the United States of America.
I'll shove the outrageous slander against the President of
the United States and the American political system to the
side for the moment. I'm more interested at the moment in
this little snippet of true brilliance:

>>"Sorry to have to be so blunt, WB, but as Mr hardhat tries
to explain, interest on our 'means of exchange' is a
positive feedback mechanism..."

>WR: 1} Interest is definitely N_O_T a "feedback" mechanism
in the sense the term is used, for example, in electronics.

>JCT: Actually, it is. Bet him and watch him back down.

>WR: It is "positive" or "negative" only in the sense that
it is positive or negative information flowing back to
entrepreneurs from transactions in the market reflecting
profit or loss.

>JCT: No, it is your bank balance growing more positive or
more negative with money flowing, not information.

>WR: To call it "feedback" in the sense of physical systems
is the con-man's play on the nuances of language.

>JCT: As long as he won't bet, who cares about his wrong
opinions.

>WR: 2) For the sake of argument, even if it were true that
interest was indeed a feedback mechanism in the sense the
term is used in electronics, feedback in electronics does
N_O_T in the least work the way the quack "hardhat" guy says
it does.

>JCT: He never finishes my making a point. We still don't
know what in particular he says is wrong, do we?

>WR: In particular, if it were not for "positive" feedback
we wouldn't have modern communications and the very
computers the hate-filled little pissants write their
screeds on.  The "hardhat" con-man is utilizing his phony
"engineering" credentials to push his lie about feedback.

>JCT: I have phony credentials??? A lie about feedback?
While he keeps being wrong and keeps backing down from
explaining exactly what I say is wrong. Or betting?...

>JCT: But I had to take some time to expose him to world for
the nut that he is. Sure, we've all seen him foaming at the
mouth at ijccr but the rest of the world may not be up to
refuting his monetary reform ravings. So I have to get my
hands dirty once in a while and deal with his crud. Luckily,
it's all on the internet forever.

JCT: I not only must take the time to correct the constant
allegations but also amend the bankmath page to inform those
who forget that the topic is banking systems engineering.
Done. Bill Ryan was right. I failed to account for people
like him who forget what we're talking about.

>Finally, I cross-post this to the sci.engr USENET newsgroup
where every engineer in the world can read this. There are
so many who are upset with my qualifying my LETS and medpot
posts as engineering that if I were wrong and Ryan were
right, there would be plenty who would like to prove me
wrong. The fact the same nut who keeps sprouting bad fruit
is all alone and that no one will back him up helps prove
the point that explains why he can't ever bet that he's
right while I can always bet that I am right.
John "The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel.

JCT: And of course, not one engineer in the sci.engr has
backed up Bill Ryan's ravings in banking systems
engineering. Yet, he can still crow that he made me amend my
page! If failing to account for the mental pygmies who
forget the topic is my biggest mistake, har har har har har
har har.




--
Abolitionist Slave Leader John C."The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
for UNILETS interest-free time-based currency in U.N. resolution C6
to Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel 519-753-0645 USENET: can.politics

>Subject: [ijccr] Digest Number 1286
>Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 13:50:04 -0000
>From: "kevinparcell" <kevinparcell@...>
>Subject: SunMoney: A new Combination Economy

KP: Greetings
There are two main problems with community currency:

JCT: Which,l of course, do not apply to a UNILETS world time
currency.

KP: 1. Global money is generally preferred to cc because
it's more useful, so cc systems remain weak.

JCT: But when the community currency becomes global, like
the global UNILETS time currency that I already use...
People have challenged to show the UNILETS working. Of
course, my page
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/unilets.htm details my
statement of account in Hours, rudimentary, but bicycles
worked despite their lack of bells and whistles. So too the
Time Standard of money. I O U 5 Hours. U O I 10 Hours. So
the challengers don't really mean that they don't understand
what my "I O U 5 Hours" for an evening's accommodations in
Austria meant. Their challenge is that since the books are
not yet kept by the U.N., then the workability has yet to be
proven! What else but until the accounts are handled by the
UN instead of each other personally, or via smaller
databases, the UNILETS database isn't operational even if
transactions can be made to the whole database without the
U.N. via the Internet, like I've already demonstrated. Of
course, not being trained in engineering, the system isn't
operational in their minds until its function is
accomplished by a UN entity rather than until its function
is simply accomplished.

KP: 2.  Most people can not participate meaningfully in cc
systems because they do not offer goods and services to
their communities, so cc bottlenecks with the few real
players.

JCT: I agree that the limitations on the number of possible
transactions in small small systems does limit meaningful
participation. Almost systems kept small and local have
suffered from the limitations of setting such local limits.

KP: Solution: SunMoney - the latest addition to the
Combination Economy strategies. It's posted at my makeshift
website at http://homepage.mac.com/forever.net

JCT: How does this new global solution differ from UNILETS?

KP: Two years ago, I introduced the Combination Economy on
this site by pointing out that the fundamental problem with
our global economic system is that the global marketplace
rewards irresponsible exploitation with profit.

JCT: Blaming the problem on a symptom of the instability is
the reason I did not check the new Sunmoney system out.

KP: I asked for and received support and have posted some of
that on the SunMoney page. Thanks for that. Now I'm asking
that you link my page (http://homepage.mac.com/forever.net)
to yours so that this updated strategy can reach more
people. Thanks again, and please email your support,
questions, criticisms, and suggestions to the address on my
website or respond here. Peace Kevin Parcell
---

>Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 16:01:44 +0100
>From: "schuster@..." <schuster@...>
>Subject: Re: SunMoney: A new Combination Economy

S: Hi all, nice to see that the relation between energy,
economy and money seems to reappear in some minds.
you are invited to see also our proposition for a solar
energy backed currency, published last year and presented in
nov 05 at the world congress for renewable energy in bonn,
germany. a short description (in german):
http://www.regioprojekt.org/regioprojekt/Energie/index_energie.htm
and a scheme (in english):
http://ccit.wji.com/tiki-
download_file.php?fileId=96&highlight=regioprojekt

it is, like most concepts of commodity backed currencies, an
approach to help people switch from the consumer's role to
the producer - or 'prosumer', which creates indepency, but
requires possessing the means of production (in the case of
renewable energy = surface area of our planet).

JCT: The only important question is whether it accepts human
energy-backed currency too? Or is it just asset-backed?

S:Another great theoretical concept ('energy dollars')
regarding energy as a monetary source for local economic
matters (much similar to ours) was made in the 1970s by the
australian Dr. Shann Turnbull (International Institute for
Self-Governance, Macquarie University, Sydney), whom we
lately invited to hold a speech at a meeting of the german
Regionetzwerk. Here is the link to the report (in german):
http://www.unterguggenberger.org/page.php?id=41

JCT: From: http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/pombank.htm

MOTHER NATURE
In Mother Nature, ants you see, no slouchers, not a one,
They manage full employment which man has yet begun.
Like in the Great Depression where men sat before their
trees,
With hammers, nails and chain-saws, their lot was still to
freeze.
They couldn't build their houses and they couldn't grow
their food,
They couldn't clothe their families, such ineptitude.
We all are the consumers of our man-made energy,
We feed on our own services, we do trade frequently.

It could be mass times speed of light, we know that's
energy,
It could be mankind doing work, instantaneously.
But as you meld both energies, value to man does grow,
Technology has reached a state, enough for man to crow.
All life consumes the product of a melded energy,
The tools we have to work for and the sun we get for free.
What makes the ants superior to men and all his deeds?
The ants are not dependent on scarce money for their needs.

To demonstrate, we'll give some chimps some coins put in a
slot,
And out will come bananas so tree-climbing they need not.
It's easier to pick up coins than risk life climbing tree,
So is it any wonder that the chimps use coins for free?
So chips cut down banana trees to make themselves some
swings,
With coins to buy bananas, there was wood for other things.
Now cut back on the circulation of the coins replaced,
And watch them start to fight for coins in ways that men
have faced.

And would their coins they start to hoard for their
security?
While others would go hungry and a pity it would be?
And as they struggled over coins, would they take a life?
Just check man's record and you'll see a case of deadly
strife.
Man is the only animal who has to pass the test,
To get cash for his pay, his boss must pay some interest.
Because of lack of money, men were brought down to their
knees.
Then came the war and there was money, plenty as you please.

They now constructed barracks and their food they now could
grow,
They now could make the uniforms, production on the go.
The war did put the scarcity of money to an end,
Destruction was acceptable so money they would spend.
Where was that money years before with idle men in ranks?
The cash was kept in short supply on purpose by the banks.
But I believe that engineers can equal ants so skilled,
At rounding up and turning on manpower unfulfilled.

The need to work may soon pass by for man to earn his keep,
In age of new robotics, he should only have to reap.
But if you wanted to create new jobs for those who hurt,
You could remove a tractor and have 10 men digging dirt.
And if you wanted to create more jobs so very soon,
You could remove the shovel and give each of them a spoon.
It's not the job they really want, it's cash with which to
buy,
And only useful work should be the enterprise they try.
When every source of power can put out all of its might,
Mankind will match the ants at last and shed its greatest
light.

KP: For more information read his article in the book:
'Building Sustainable Communities' by benello, swann,
turnbull.
more papers by Shann Turnbull:

JCT: Does it apply to building a sustainable world too?

S: Kindest regards from REGIOprojekt e.V. Weimar, Germany,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=26239
Ludwig
---

>Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 19:18:43 -0000
>From: "kevinparcell" <kevinparcell@...>
>Subject: Re: SunMoney: A new Combination Economy

Thank you for your response. I think I need to point out to
you that combination economies, including SunMoney, are not
resource-backed currencies, as you imply.

The problems with resource-backed currencies include the
fact that the value of the commodity is set on the global
marketplace, so that cc can never achieve preference over
global currency through resource-backing; global prices for
commodities vary constantly, so that cc that is backed by a
commodity (such as silver or energy) has an unstable value
that complicates its trade; a reserve of the commodity used
must be provided to secure backing, adding complexity and
expense to the already complex strategy; and billions of
people don't have the wealth of resources necessary to back
a currency, much less to store a reserve. These are among
the reasons that energy and other resource backed currencies
have failed to successfully support cc, despite the fact
that they have been around for thousands of years.

Combination economies work by discounting the purchase of
essential commodities with cc,

JCT: Banking with chips needs discounting...

KP: guaranteeing in this way a greater value than global
currency,

JCT: Trying to fix the problems of small systems without
building a big one.

KP: a value that is immune to fluctuations in global prices,

JCT: That's the beauty of an Hour of human time. Everybody's
pretty good at determining what they'll trade their time
for.

KP: and permitting fiat cc

JCT: He says he knows what "fiat" money is despite my having
challenged anyone to explain what makes something wrong with
a government "fiat" money. People use the word "fiat" money
like "worthless" money. When they use use the word, I
challenge them to explain why the "fiat" money isn't worth
the taxes they pay and no one ever answers. And yet, though
no one can stand up to explain what what makes "fiat" money
bad, here again, another so-called "professor" in banking
systems engineering uses the word in the usual context
though I have no doubt he's seen my challenge to explain
what it means. Now Parcell uses "fiat" with community
currency. Just what does he think a "fiat cc" is?

KP:
and permitting fiat cc guaranteed by the value of the
resource.

JCT: Currency backed up by a resource is, by definition,"
not "fiat." By "fiat" of the government means by "Order" of
the government, and presumes nothing else, but tax payment.

KP: The combination economy strategy can also be
superimposed over existing resource-backed currencies,

JCT: Again, it's trying to fix in the small cc systems
problems that do not exist in the global cc UNILETS.

KP: so that communities that believe the supposed guarantee
of resource backing helps them can employ that and still
gain the advantage of preference over global currency. Peace
Kevin Parcell

JCT: Okay, here's his information page.

KP: WaterMoney
SunMoney:A Combination Economy
A STRATEGY FOR COMMUNITY AND GLOBAL ECONOMIC REFORM
The fundamental problem with our global economic system is
that its anonymity

JCT: A different "fundamental problem," wrong too.

KP: permits us to profit through irresponsibly exploiting
resources, resulting in hunger, environmental destruction,
poverty, and war.

JCT: These problems are not caused by anonymity of the
global economic system.

KP: Just as our global marketplace has revealed itself as
unsustainable for this reason,

JCT: Wrong reason.

KP: the intrinsic accountability of strong local
marketplaces offers a vital solution. The Combination
Economy, introduced here, empowers community currency
systems to create such strong local marketplaces by giving
local currency general preference over global currency.

JCT: A wasted competition.

KP: The Value of Local Currency
The value of cash originates with its utility in
facilitating barter, and has grown to include its
convenience in conserving wealth. Backing currency with
valuable resources, such as silver or gold, may also seem
fundamental to our idea of the value of money, but in fact
precious metals were first employed in the minting of coins
because the value of the metal protected against
counterfeiting. Advances in printing and minting techniques
have proven sufficient to deter forgery, and so most
currency today has value simply by the tacit agreement of
those using it.

JCT: Wrong. most currency today has the value pledged by the
written mort-gage contract borrowers had to sign to get it,
not tacit agreement.

KP: This "fiat" currency

JCT: He thinks he understand what "fiat" currency is, like
those who understand how people can live beyond their means.
People who eat tomorrow's food, wear tomorrow's clothes, who
live beyond their means. Yet, if they eat the food today, it
is not beyond their means. So how can people live beyond
their means. It's a physical impossibility but seen through
financial spectacles, everyone thinks they understand what
it means to live beyond one's means. Same thing with "fiat"
currency. It's impossible for currency to be only "fiat,"
and yet most of those who profess knowledge on banking all
know what "fiat money" means and its dangers. Har har har.
KP: This "fiat" currency is far more practical than
resource-backed currency, because every community can afford
it - no stockpile of silver or gold is necessary.

JCT: So he professes "fiat" means "non-metal-backed" money.

KP: Just as with global money today, local currencies can
gain their value entirely from the willingness of people to
trade with them. However, new local currencies that have no
intrinsic value can seem risky, so it's important to
understand the other advantages of local fiat currencies so
that there is that willingness. For example, alternative
global currencies, such as credit cards, have competed with
traditional global currencies, such as dollars, by offering
greater convenience in some circumstances, such as when cash
is scarce; and they've introduced other advantages to users,
such as bonus flying miles. Similarly, community currencies,
aka scrip, address shortness of cash, but in a lasting
manner because they can only recirculate locally, and this
delivers the fine premiums of increased business to locally
based enterprises and the myriad benefits that proceed from
that.
In addition, non-local merchants are limited in their
ability to trade with scrip because it can only be spent
locally,

JCT: Limitations caused by limits set by participants. They
limit their currency's range so they may suffer the
limitations they did set. Seems mindless, doesn't it. It
will to posterity, for sure, if not yet now.

KP: and so local money systems begin to create locally
controlled marketplaces. Here, partially insulated from
global competition, new local enterprises have a chance for
a foothold, and so these local marketplaces can see
continual growth.

JCT: Again, always presuming a fight with a powerful global
currency. Never expecting the peace when community currency
becomes the global time-currency. Hey, it already is.

KP: Using global and local currency together in such
complimentary currency systems promotes locally based
enterprises without closing communities to global resources.

JCT: Using a global and local currency together is a
duplication of effort, another waste of time when using
UNILETS is use locally too.

KP: To compete in the global marketplace, global traders are
impelled to depend on the lack of accountability that is
inevitable in a free world when products are consumed far
from where they are produced. The global trader has little
recourse but to exploit human and other natural resources,
and abandon communities when those resources are exhausted.
But truly local businesses cannot so easily abandon their
communities, which permits consumers to hold them
accountable, and so truly local marketplaces tend, of
necessity, to be sustainable. In addition, the true local
marketplace provides work options that can compete against
the global sweatshop, so these communities have a chance to
affectively resist exploitive wages and export goods and
services produced in a sustainable manner.
But perhaps most importantly, local marketplaces tend to
value the uniqueness of individuals over their worth as
components in a global monoculture, building unique
communities founded on the intrinsic worth of individuals.
A Better Local Currency

JCT: And on that note, rather than adopt the perfect global
currency, he's still looking to improve the weaker model,
I'll not read the rest of this off-target tripe.

KP: In another sense, the value of money proceeds from it's
scarcity: The less one has, the more valuable it is.
Accordingly, when global money has been scarce, community
currencies have sometimes appeared to fill the gap. However,
global currency is generally preferred in trade over scrip
because it can be spent more easily on non-local goods and
services, so that local-currency systems have withered as
global currency returned. And so, in practice, keeping
community currency systems alive where global currency is
available has required that the volume of local money
circulating be kept low to curtail the deflation of its
value. Consequently, without additional measures to give
local currency general preference over global currency,
local-money systems must remain limited in size and strength
to second-class marketplaces, unable to empower their
communities to effectively resist the exploitation of the
global marketplace.
One way to create such a preference is to institute a
significant discount (e.g. 50%) for an essential commodity,
such as water, when purchased by residents with scrip. This
strategy allows the local currency to exceed the value it
can achieve through resource-backing, it keeps that value
immune to fluctuations in the global price of the resource,
and it requires no reserves. Confering some of the intrinsic
value of an essential commodity on local money in this
manner establishes a Combination Economy. This discount must
be established by law so that suppliers must comply.
Suppliers, in turn, may adjust their prices to compensate,
however the discount remains significant regardless of how
much trade is accomplished using local money. For example,
if a provider had charged $1 per unit and now sells half its
goods at a 50% discount, then raising the price to $1.33,
discounted 50% to 67", recovers losses while still giving a
33% savings to local consumers. When all trade in the
commodity is accomplished with scrip, then its local-money
price returns to $1. However, the global-money price would
then be $2, so the advantage for local currency increases
with its increased use, encouraging continual growth of the
local-money system.
Combination Economies give an obvious and substantial
advantage to local suppliers of the chosen commodity. The
most essential commodity - and most threatened - is clean
water, and so a WaterMoney system may be the best strategy.
But in some communities water may be so abundant as to be
free, or so scarce as to be entirely imported, and so
FoodMoney becomes the most obvious choice. However, to
succeed, the strategy must lead the community to sufficient
autonomy to resist the exploitation of the global
marketplace, and so it must encourage the community's
control of all essential commodities. In this regard, a
WaterMoney system greatly benefits the local control of food
by effectively subsidizing local production and processing,
while FoodMoney may be unattractive to people who prefer
non-local foods, as is increasingly the case with
globalization, hindering the circulation of the local
currency.
While trade in water is a major activity in many developing
economies, it's generally a relatively minor part of
developed economies. TaxMoney can be a powerful strategy for
such industrialized regions, by reducing local taxes while
also assuring that the money saved stays local. Taxation is
often the way communities take advantage of economy of scale
to address essential needs, such as education,
transportation, or safety services, so the necessity of
efficiently recirculating TaxMoney compels local control of
these services and the rapid creation of true local
marketplaces. The tax discount is partly recouped through
the boost in local economic activity that an influx of
community currency must produce, and the remainder can be
offset by a general tax-hike that then shifts more of the
tax burden to non-local businesses and so further spurs the
creation of local enterprises.
Perhaps the second-greatest obstacle to the development of
local-currency systems, after the greater utility of global
currency, is that in many regions most people either do not
work near where they live or dont produce goods and services
for local consumption. These people have no obvious way to
participate in a local marketplace, and perhaps little
motivation. Consequently, devising means to put local
currency in their hands is hampered by the need to avoid
flooding the system with excess scrip, since they can spend
it more easily than they can accept it, and so the scrip
bottle-necks with those who are truly active in the
marketplace. SunMoney addresses this - a Combination Economy
based on locally produced renewable energy resources, such
as solar and wind. With this approach - perhaps the most
powerful for developed economies today because of the rising
price of energy - the region's electricity provider is
required to accept local scrip for a percentage of their
product and at a discount. The regional provider can then
use the local currency (applying the same discount and
percentage) to purchase energy from individuals and
communities, subsidizing the development of local resources.
For example, a resident could install solar collectors or
wind-powered generators and sell production in excess of
their own need to the regional utility. In many locations,
the infrastructure is already in place for this, and so
confering some of the intrinsic value of energy onto the
local currency will rapidly produce active local
marketplaces.
In an effective Combination Economy local suppliers are
subsidized in the sustainable development of all local
resources, even as non-local suppliers are disadvantaged by
their more limited ability to use local currency. Thus,
Combination Economies promote growth of autonomous community
marketplaces rooted in community control of vital local
resources.
The Bottom Line
The challenge before us is not merely to enrich local
merchants, but to understand that today there are no longer
any local marketplaces, only hubs in a single global
marketplace, so that enriching local merchants does little
to strengthen local communities. Neither is the challenge
merely to raise communities out of poverty, but to
understand that poverty is an inevitable result of the
unaccountability of our global marketplace, where enriching
one community impoverishes another.
The challenge of this new millennium is to change our
economic system, from one that rewards irresponsibility to
one that is accountable and provides the sustainable
prosperity necessary to feed all of our children. Using
community currency promotes prosperity, diversity, and
sustainability, but such use has been hampered by the
greater utility of global currency. Combination Economies
can give community currencies the tangible advantage over
global currency that's necessary to unleash the creative
power of the free marketplace.
Support for the Combination Economy
"Fine initiative." Ross Jackson, founder/chairman of Gaia
Trust
"I really like your concepts." Jose Luis Gutierrez, Global
Currency Project
"I have no criticism to your objective or general argument."
Bernard Lietaer, co-designer and implementer of the Euro,
ACCESS Foundation.

JCT: Har har har har. You can bet Bankster Bernard would be
in favor of an off-target solution.

"Great stuff." Joel Hodroff, Founder and CEO of DualCurrency
Systems

JCT: At least it helps tell us who the incompetent morons or
bankster moles are.


--
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: Max Cornelssen has been busy with his trial below but
had to go speak to his appeal against Wilson J.'s refusal to
prohibit, just like us in Ontario since we had done nothing
yet to perfect it. The judge was Costigan, of the Krieger
panel!

Max pointed out how they were arguing about whether his own
decision in the appeal killed the O'Leary stay of Acton's
invalidation of the cultivation prohibition or whether it
died with the Crown's status as appellant and asked him.
Judge Costigan said Max was not going to find out today and
put the matter off to be spoken to in April.

In the meantime, I've checked out the Alberta Court of
Appeal's procedures and it's like this.

COURT OF APPEAL OF ALBERTA
AGREEMENT AS TO CONTENTS OF APPEAL BOOK - CHECK/RETURN FORM
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/ca/publication/Agreement_as_to_Contents.pdf

This checklist return form provides an itemized summary of
the most common problems when filing documents in the Court
of Appeal. However, this form does not include each
requirement of the Alberta Rules of Court and Practice
Directions. Accordingly, you should rely on the appropriate
authority when preparing a document for filing in the Court
of Appeal.

A. General Format of Document:
Refer to the General Format - Check/Return Form for formal
requirements of all documents.
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/ca/publication/Agreement_as_to_Contents.pdf
B. Copies Required:
The Registry will keep the original agreement as to contents
of appeal book.
C. Serve within 15 Days (ARC 515(1)):
Within 15 days after Notice of Appeal is filed, the
appellant shall serve on all parties affected by the appeal
a proposed agreement as to contents of the appeal book.

PARTICULARS OF AGREEMENT/ORDER AS TO CONTENTS OF APPEAL
BOOK:

D. Signatures of Counsel/Parties (ARC 5.1): The agreement
must be signed by all parties or their solicitor. The
relationship to the appeal of the person signing (solicitor
for appellant or solicitor for respondent, whichever
applies) must be indicated. The name of the person signing
the document must be legibly printed directly beneath the
signature.
Note: Rules 515(2) & (3) provide as follows:
(2) On receipt of the proposed agreement each party shall
signify his approval of the proposed agreement or shall
specify which part or parts of the proposed agreement he
approves and which he disapproves and his reasons therefor,
to the appellant.
(3) If the parties are unable to agree on the contents of
the appeal book, a judge of the court on notice shall, by
order, fix the contents.

E. Agreement Deemed to be Accepted/Must be Filed Forthwith
(ARC 515(4), (4.1) & (5)):
If a party does not respond to the proposed agreement as to
contents of appeal book within 15 days after it is served,
it shall be deemed to have been accepted and the party
serving the document shall thereon endorse the agreement to
the effect that service thereof was made and no response was
received within the 15 days. The agreement after it is made
or deemed to have been made must be filed forthwith. This
endorsement shall be printed with the document in the appeal
book.

F. Written order or undertaking for preparation of appeal
books must be filed (ARC 515(4.2)):
Within 10 days after the agreement as to the contents of an
appeal book is made or deemed to have been made, or the
contents fixed, the appellant must file either:
(i) a copy of the written order given to the office of the
transcript management services, or to a commercial supplier,
for the preparation and printing of the appeal books, or
(ii) a written undertaking signed by the solicitor of record
for the appellant to promptly prepare and file the appeal
book.

G. Contents of the Agreement (ARC 530 & Part B. CPD)):
(i) Must list all documents agreed upon to be included in
the appeal book in accordance with Rule 530 and the
Consolidated Practice Directions (CPD) - Part B, including
the agreement as to contents of appeal book, certificate of
preparer, the clerk's certificate (if applicable), and the
lawyer's certificate (if applicable), etc.,
(ii) must exclude all matters not truly necessary to decide
the appeal, but may provide that certain documents or
transcripts are to be considered part of the record before
the Court of Appeal without reproducing them in the appeal
book (ARC 530(14)), and
(iii) must not be set up as a table of contents for an
appeal book, nor be separated into specific parts as an
appeal book is, as that may cause confusion when the appeal
book is prepared. The agreement should contain far less
detail.

H. Only Materials Needed for Disposition must be Included
(ARC 515(6)): It is the duty of all parties on an appeal, so
far as possible, to ensure that only the material needed for
the disposition of the appeal is included in the appeal book
and to eliminate evidence, exhibits, and other material
unlikely to be needed.

I. Appeal Books Must be Prepared Promptly and Filed and
Served Forthwith (ARC 530(15)(a) & (b)):
Appeal books must:
(i) be prepared promptly and filed and served forthwith
after they are prepared, and
(ii) in any event, unless otherwise ordered by a judge, be
filed not later than 12 weeks from the date on which the
agreement as to contents was filed or fixed, or the appeal
will be struck by the Registrar.
Note: An appeal that has not been restored within 6 months
from the date the appeal was struck is deemed to be
abandoned (ARC 530(18)).

J. Matter will be moved to the General Appeal List (ARC
515.1(1)): The Registrar will enter a case on the General
Appeal List whenever the first of the following events
occurs (See Rule 515.1 for further details):
(i) 3 months have elapsed since the notice of appeal was
filed and no agreement as to contents or order fixing
contents has been filed;
(ii) 6 months have elapsed since the notice of appeal was
filed;
(iii) the appeal books have been filed; or
(iv) a supervising judge directs that the case be so
entered.
Note: In Calgary the List Manager has directed the Registrar
to enter all matters on the General Appeal List immediately
upon the Notice of Appeal being filed.
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/ca/publication/index.htm

JCT: That's it. Max has to serve a proposed agreement as to
contents of the appeal book. Within 10 days after the
agreement is made, file the written order given to the
printer or (ii) a written undertaking to promptly prepare
and file the appeal book.

Though I couldn't find the Alberta rules they mentioned,
I've sent Max the suggested Appeal Book contents:

Max Cornelssen
22263 Township Rd. 512
Sherwood Park, Alberta, T8C 1H2

Date:_________________

Gwena Ozem,
Department of Justice
211 Bank of Montreal Bldg
10199-101 St.,
Edmonton Alberta T5J 3Y4
Tel/fax: 780-495-8503/6940
Crown File No: 1-107582

SENT VIA FAX

Re: Indictment No. 041076274Q1 Appeal Book Agreement

Dear Ms. Ozem:

The Appellant proposes that the Appeal Book include:

- Nov 13 2005 Notice of Appeal

- Oct 13 Endorsement of Wilson J.

- Aug 26?? Record of Application for Prohibition

- Sep 14 Written Reply of the Crown Respondent including:

Tab #1 R. v. Walstrom

Tab #2 R. v. Krieger (Acton J.)

Tab #3 R. v. Krieger (O'Leary J.A.) suspension

Tab #4 R. v. Krieger (Costigan Wittman LoVecchio JJ.A.)

Tab #5 R. v. Krieger Crown Memorandum to SCC

Tab #6 R. v. Hitzig

- Sep 21 Applicant's Written Reply to the Crown Reply

- Oct 12 Supplementary Written Reply of the Crown Respondent
including:

Tab #1 R. v. Turmel (Doherty Goudge Simmons)

Tab #2 R. v. J.P. (Ontario Court of Appeal)

Tab #3 R. v. Turmel SCC for Hitzig challenge

Tab #4 R. v. Turmel SCC for Schedule II challenge

Tab #5 Interpretation Act

Tab #6 R. v. Nielsens (Edward J. Ont)

Tab #7 R. v. Ivancevic (Keaney J. Ont)

Tab #8 R. v. Blaine (Dowdle J. Ont)

- Oct 26 Applicant's Final Written Submissions with

Tab App.13: 2003 May 16 R. v. J.P. Rogin decision (Sup.C.O.)

Tab App.14 2003 Jan 2 R.v. J.P., Phillips decision (Prov.C.O.)

Tab App.15 2003 Oct 6 R.v. Masse, Chen decision (B.C.Prov.C.)

Tab App.16 2001 Nov 20 R.v. Krieger, Crown Submission to O'Leary

- Nov 02 2nd Supplementary Written Reply of Crown Respondent
including:

Tab #1 Affidavit of Adriano Iovinelli

Tab #2 Affidavit of Scott Couper

Tab #3 R. v. Pete BCCA

Tab #4 Wolf v. Queen (1974)

Tab #6 Stare decisis precedent

- Transcript of the Oct 13 2005 hearing before Wilson J.

- Transcript of Nov 16 2005 hearing before Read J.






___________________________
Max Cornelssen

JCT:  Judge Costigan gave Max the impression there was no
way the appeal was going to be heard before the trial but
the right to appeal in matters of extraordinary relief is
stated in the Criminal Code so there's not much anyone can
do to stop him short of speeding up is trial.



--
Abolitionist Slave Leader John C."The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
for UNILETS interest-free time-based currency in U.N. resolution C6
to Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel 519-753-0645 USENET: can.politics

>Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 03:24:59 +0000
>From: cisco_117@... (cisco_117)
>Subject: Good News!!My wifes charges are withdrawn!
>To: MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com

DF: Happy Valentine's Day Everyone!
Today was our second appearance in which the crown agreed to
withdraw my wife's charges! I had to agree to give a sworn
affidavit that the marijuana they seized during the raid on
our home January 5, 2006 was all mine and she had nothing to
do with it.
Then I was going to do the motion to quash on my own as my
lawyer was going to be unavailable to do when I needed it
done. In front of the judge ready to have her charges
withdrawn the lawyer went on record for my wife only,
explaining that I needed to do the motion to quash ASAP and
he was unavailable.
The crown whispers to the lawyer that the deal was made on
the basis that he was going to be representing me. The
matter was held down. My lawyer spoke to the crown who said
if I was going to represent myself on the motion then the
deal was off. So they forced me to have the lawyer go on the
record for me, in order to get my wife's charges dropped so
she can go back to work, as she works for the school board
as an educational assistant and had been suspended without
pay until this matter was taken care of.

JCT: These are the horror stories of victims we don't
usually hear about.

DF: Then the lawyer finally got the point that I was
insistent on having this motion heard quickly as I need my
medicine.
We went back in front of the judge where she withdrew my
wife's charges, and then began arguing that the motion needed
to be done ASAP because I am on conditions that I can not
possess my medicine, and that my Health Canada card info was
being confirmed today with the doctor, and then being sent
out. She said looking at the crown that she didn't see the
sense in booking court time if my licence is on the way and
the charges should be taken care of when it arrives. Hinting
to the crown that when he sees I have an exemption, he'd
better withdraw the charges against me.
This was the same judge that I did my 5 probation variation
request in front of, as she is well aware that I know a lot
of information and that I know more than he thinks I know.
This judge loves me! Anyways, they ended up remanding it to
March 9, 2006. Leaving time for the H.C. card to come by
then. At which time I could have the conditions changed at
that time relieving the urgency to have this heard.

The crown was really trying not to have to the motion heard
saying that it wasn't served properly, and that it didn't
fall under section 601(1) saying that it didn't mean quash.
and that he needed to get a hold of the Attorney General to
find out if they want him to to the motion, or if they want
to send someone from T.O. to do it. The judge said this is a
highly precedential case and that a factum needs to be
included to do it properly in her view, as she was looking
directly at me, more or less telling me how to do it
properly in order for it to be official for such a
precedential case as this.

The crown is really trying to dodge the bullet. My lawyer
wants the motion to be in front of her so he's going to look
through his book when he knows he has something else in
front of her that day, book the motion to be heard the same
day.

So in short the crown is squirming in his seat being
pressured by the police not to let me walk, but with every
appearance so far they have learned how much more I know,
and they will want to get rid of me really quick.

My wife will be writing a letter to the editor of our local
paper to try and reclaim the reputation that the police have
now damaged by charging her, and a month later the charges
are withdrawn. Leaving her to have to write what they have
done. I will post a copy of the letter she writes to them.
The paper has already agreed to publish the letter. I will
keep everyone informed as this goes, Derek Francisco

JCT: After all the losing news coming out of the Alan Young -
Narc Emery movement, these wins make happy news. When was the
last time they ever won anything? When was the last time they did
not lose big?
Har har har har.


--
Abolitionist Slave Leader John C."The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
for UNILETS interest-free time-based currency in U.N. resolution C6
to Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel 519-753-0645 USENET: can.politics

>Subject: [apfn-1] Digest Number 3763
>Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:27:32 -0500
>From: "norgesen" <norgeson@...>
>Subject: The Open Conspiracy

THE OPEN CONSPIRACY - by H.G. Wells
Enthusiastic Supporter of New World Order

Summary: 'The Open Conspiracy' was Wells' 'Blue print for a
world revolution';

JCT: Not many people have the nerve to offer a blueprint.

he regarded this book as his finished statement on the way
the world ought to be ordered.

JCT: Like I said, not many have offered.

Possibly he underestimated, or ignored, the fact that it is
often in the interest of subsets of the human race to act
against other subsets. Moreover the emphasis on religion
seems odd, from a rationalist.

JCT: I'm a rationalist engineer and I've found good in every
religion I've studied. I'm a believer in something big.

Wells changed publishers rather freely, and I've found it
impossible to locate the copyright holder(s) of this title.
However, there are more than a dozen other Wells titles
scanned in on Internet. I would ask interested readers not
to download this book, however, at least pro tem. -
Rae West

RW: Introduction: H. G. Wells (1866-1946) entirely by chance
came across an application form to study under T. H. Huxley;
after his education in London, and writing a biology
textbook, he became a prolific writer of fiction, first
gaining widespread fame with 'The Time Machine' in 1895; he
wrote humorous novels based on his own life (The Wheels of
Chance, Kipps..) and in 1900 published 'Anticipations of the
Reaction of Mechanical and Scientific Progress on Human Life
and Thought' based on lectures at the Royal Institution,
where Faraday and others had lectured.
After the First World War, observing the lack of knowledge
of most people about most things, he turned to history,
starting, in 1918, his 'Outline of History' first published
in parts with 'gorgeous' covers, then in 1920 as a two-
volume work including colour plates of a lavish nature for
the time. In effect it was jointly authored - his chapters
were sent to collaborators, and the resulting multiple
corrections reassembled by the duly-chastened Wells. A
'popular' one volume edition appeared in 1930. By the
standards of its time this was a best-seller. It was praised
decades later by A J P Taylor as 'still the best
introduction to history'.

JCT: I've got it. Found it in Salvation Army.

RW: Toynbee had a favourable opinion of it. During the 1920s
it sparked a controversy with Hilaire Belloc, who believed
in such things as the 'Fall of Man'. It was also attacked by
a teacher of Greek. Wells' hopes that school history could
be taught in an international sense still, of course, have
not come to fruition.
He planned and collaborated a hefty set of volumes on
biology, The Science of Life, with his own son, and with
Julian Huxley; the theme was largely evolutionary ('The
Origin of Species' was published only a few years before his
birth). Huxley, a descendant of T H Huxley, regarded Wells
as something of a Cockney upstart.
And he wrote a descriptive, rather than analytical, book on
economics, which includes many ingenious observations but
was eclipsed by Keynes' General Theory of four years later.

JCT: Around the same time Major H. Douglas was figuring out
Social Credit. Keynes was his bankster Judas Goat somewhat
in the way Bernard Lietaer and Alan Young (in medpot combat)
mine. Covering up the good theory he was preaching as they
cover up the good engineering I preach. Douglas published a
workable solution to the underfunding problem but Keynes not
only did not accept it, he offered another wrong path for
people to follow instead of the true reformer engineer. Same
with today's Judas Goats. Just as it was pretty stupid not
to heed Douglas, the Social Credit Engineer, it's just as
stupid not to heed Turmel, the LETS sociable credits"
Engineer. Because no matter how much better sociable credits
a LETS now offers, it is a variant of the improvements made
by Louis Even and the Quebec Social Credit Movement.

RW: Some of his books were filmed; his 'Invisible Man' was
turned into a filmscript by Preston Sturges, who however
regarded his books as not very filmable and infuriated Wells
by making the invisible man mad. Another media incident was
Orson Welles' radio broadcast of 'War of the Worlds' in
1938, involving aggressive Martians landing in a location
Americanised from its original Surrey, and which was
reported to have cause mass panic among less educated
Americans on the eastern seaboard.
C.P. Snow wrote of Wells that he could 'throw out a phrase
that crystallised a whole argument', and that he 'never
heard anyone remotely in the same class.'

JCT: It's called a zinger.

RW: Among these phrases were 'the War that will end War',
coined when he worked with the Ministry of Propaganda under
Northcliffe during the First World War, which he supported,
and 'the New World Order', which he seemed to be the first
to use, or popularise, in a 1940 book of that title. His
less successful phrases included the 'competent receiver'.
He said of himself that he 'worked all the time'.

He was a socialist of an empirical, rather vague,
rationalist type, disliking Marx and unenthusiastic about
the managerial socialism of the Webbs.

His book 'The Open Conspiracy' was published in 1928,
subtitled 'Blue Prints for a World Revolution'. Bertrand
Russell said of this book '.. I do not know of anything with
which I agree more entirely' though since this was in a
begging letter perhaps he was just being polite. It was
revised and republished as 'What Are We to Do with Our
Lives?' in 1931.

In this short book, Wells attempts to answer the question:
What should socialists actually do? - to which he confessed
several times to having no very clear idea. It's a counter
to Marx: why shouldn't non-proletarians unite to change the
world?

JCT: Didn't he see they had to socialize the credit instead
of focusing on every other system but the credit system.
Social defence, social medicine, but no social credit?

RW: Quotations:  'This book states as plainly and clearly as
possibly the essential ideas of my life, the perspective of
my world. ... the subject of this book is the whole destiny
of man..'
'If I could, I would put this book before every mind in the
world. I would say, tell me where this is wrong, or tell me
why you do not live after these principles...

JCT: Nice thought but the media is controlled to not let
you. I've often wondered how fast it would take to get
social credits to starving third world babies so they can
buy food, clothing, medicine now and pay us back later if
the world banking upgraded their 1/(s-i) software to 1/s and
the world media trumpeted the introduction of Heaven on
Earth? A month and everyone would be eating? A week? One
day: "Open the stores, their credit's good."

RW: My idiom of thought may not be his. Will he forgive that
for the sake of the substance I am putting before him?..
Will the reader at least try to understand before he
refutes?'
'... a movement to realize the conceivable better state of
the world must deny itself the advantages of secret methods
and tactical insincerities.

JCT: Which must explain why I've always operated completely
transparently. No skeletons in my closet holding me back.

RW: It must leave that to its adversaries. We must declare
our end plainly from the outset and risk no
misunderstandings of our procedure.'

JCT: Restrict the banks' computers to a pure service charge
and abolish the interest charge was what I sought in my
Supreme Court of Canada applications. See
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/scc3.htm or txt

'A time will come when men will sit with history before them
or with some old newspaper before them and ask
incredulously, "Was there ever such a world?"'

JCT: Called Hell, yes. Where bankers tricked humans into
playing musical chairs with insufficient chairs (Keynes say
the death-gamble in mort-gage too) with poverty for the
losers, yes. Switched to Heaven in the twinkling of an eye
by adding an extra chair, (money = debt) yes too.

RW: - Above Notes by Rae West (Information from: Wells's
Experiment in Autobiography, The Outline of History, The New
Teaching of History, and e.g. 'The Fate of Homo Sapiens':
'.. far from being "Mr. Know-all", I am helpless ignorance,
in a sea of unconscious ignorance'; Michael Foot remark on A
J P Taylor; Toynbee's Study of History; Martin Gardner's
'Fads and Fallacies..' has one account of the Orson Welles
incident; Julian Huxley, Memories; Bertrand Russell,
Autobiography vol II; C P Snow, Variety of Men; Preston
Sturges.., ed Anne Sturges. The 'infuriated' comment is
however from TV)

CONTENTS
I - THE PRESENT CRISIS IN HUMAN AFFAIRS   15K
II - THE IDEA OF THE OPEN CONSPIRACY   5K

JCT: That the Rothschild family owned the planet in the 19t
century, maybe 20th, and bear responsibility for turning it
into a sewer where men weep and gnash their teeth. I'd hate
to be in their shoes at their Judgments, especially since
I'd expect their trials to be the biggest draws in Heaven.
If you think OJ for 1 murder was big news on Earth, imagine
how big news for a family of history charged with usury
against billions. (usury=genocide of the poor)

III - WE HAVE TO CLEAR AND CLEAN UP OUR MINDS   16K

JCT: There's so much bull out there disseminated by all the
Judas Goats leading the people astray.

IV - THE REVOLUTION IN EDUCATION   3K
V - RELIGION IN THE NEW WORLD   15K

JCT: Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have them do
unto you," I say: "Do good, have fun." Don't forget the
"have fun." If it ain't fun for everyone, it ain't Heaven.

RW: VI - MODERN RELIGION IS OBJECTIVE   8K
VII - WHAT MANKIND HAS TO DO   11k
VIII - BROAD CHARACTERISTICS OF A SCIENTIFIC WORLD
COMMONWEAL   27K

JCT: I wonder if he's provided his model with a stable
medium of exchange?

RW: IX - NO STABLE UTOPIA IS NOW CONCEIVABLE   2K

JCT: I guess he didn't get that far and is still stymied by
the Rothschilds banks still in charge of all the gold.
Creating credit money leaves the owners alone and utopia is
then conceivable because the old owners can join too.

RW: X - THE OPEN CONSPIRACY IS NOT TO BE THOUGHT OF AS A
SINGLE ORGANIZATION; IT IS A CONCEPTION OF LIFE OUT OF WHICH
EFFORTS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND NEW ORIENTATIONS WILL ARISE 13K

JCT: It is a contract forcing humans to fight humans for
life support tickets to the death.

RW: XI - FORCES AND RESISTANCES IN THE GREAT MODERN
COMMUNITIES NOW PREVALENT, WHICH ARE ANTAGONISTIC TO THE
OPEN CONSPIRACY. THE WAR WITH TRADITION   31k

JCT: I doubt he noticed Douglas on the horizon.

RW: XII - THE RESISTANCES OF THE LESS INDUSTRIALIZED PEOPLES
TO THE DRIVE OF THE OPEN CONSPIRACY   19K

JCT: What resistance. Money buys men with guns. Big Money
buys the warrior on the block.

RW: XIII - RESISTANCES AND ANTAGONISTIC FORCES IN OUR
CONSCIOUS AND UNCONSCIOUS SELVES   16K

JCT: Everyone knows there is something wrong but the
solution has to be anything but abolishing interest. That's
impossible, they have all been conditioned to believe.

RW: XIV - THE OPEN CONSPIRACY BEGINS AS A MOVEMENT OF
DISCUSSION, EXPLANATION, AND PROPAGANDA   13K

JCT: He must be talking about the open conspiracy of the
debt slaves for liberation, not the "in your face"
conspiracy of Big Money who have successfully enslaved us in
debt.

RW: XV - EARLY CONSTRUCTIVE WORK OF THE OPEN CONSPIRACY 23K
XVI - EXISTING AND DEVELOPING MOVEMENTS WHICH ARE
CONTRIBUTORY TO THE OPEN CONSPIRACY AND WHICH MUST DEVELOP A
COMMON CONSCIOUSNESS. THE PARABLE OF PROVINDER ISLAND 16K

JCT: Wonder how it compares to Louis Even's Salvation Island
where he ends detailing how to run your own LETS Local
Employment-Trading system using their own sociable credits.

XVII - THE CREATIVE HOME, SOCIAL GROUP, AND SCHOOL: THE
PRESENT WASTE OF IDEALISTIC WILL   7K

JCT: You can bet that competing to the death doesn't focus
on maximizing production but on maximizing tickets.

RW: XVIII - PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
OPEN CONSPIRACY INTO A WORLD CONTROL AND COMMONWEAL: THE
HAZARDS OF THE ATTEMPT   10K

JCT: Looking at the botched job the present owners have got
us into, I'd speak of the hazards of not making the attempt.

RW: XIX - HUMAN LIFE IN THE COMING WORLD COMMUNITY   4K
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/hgwells/hg_cont.htm

JCT: Human life in Turmel's heaven where there's no police
involvement in gambling, sex, drugs and rock-and-roll and
interest-free loans from the international UNILETS timebank.
That's all I need to call life Heaven and we're really not
all that far away. But for those actively working against a
UNILETS stable currency with their destabilizing
suggestions.



--
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: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 18:25:28 +0000
>From: timelets@... (David)
>Subject: RE: TURMEL: UNILETS is an incredible-concept.com
>Cc: ijccr@yahoogroups.com
John, Dummy me,
www.incredible-concepts.com/html/jungle_story.html
the Jungle Story resembles 'P2B LETS or multilateral barter'
rather than 'hour-based' UNILETS.  Happy to be made 'wiser'.
Salaams, david


-----Original Message-----
>From: ijccr@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: 21 December 2005 22:30
>To: turmel@yahoogroups.com
>JCT: There is a web site which explains how the electronic
agora will someday work. Notice it presumes enough money to
start with. I asked the buddy who sent me the article where
they got the money they all used and why there was no
shortage. Though just presumed, with sufficient money,
here's how the UNILETS world will someday work:
http://www.incredible-concepts.com/html/jungle_story.html

JCT: In world-wide UNILETS some see "Utopia," some see other
heavens, I call it Eden when we've mastered our world
sustainably, not what you'd call a Rothschild or Rockefeller
specialty at running a better world. Of course, I'm only in
the 1997/8 Guinness Book of Records under Royalty &
Government, they only got to actually run world Government
and blow it. My grandfather, Adelard Turmel's generation
knew they had been born "Under the sign of abundance" and
the hep ones saw how it had been done, how they had been
enslaved by their debts, and despaired of convincing their
non-Socred countrymen of interest-free banking.
---

>Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 12:24:35 -0800
>From: ernie yacub <ernie@...>
>Subject: Re: UNILETS is an incredible-concept.com

EY: LETS is an incredible concept - UNILETS is just another
LETS. ernie

JCT: UNILETS is not just another LETS. It has none of the
weaknesses of little Local LETS. It's the one biggest one
encompassing all the other small ones which become
redundant when it's done right internationally.
---

>Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 22:54:40 +0100
>From: "Marc Gauvin" <gauvin@...>
>Subject: Re: UNILETS is an incredible-concept.com

MG: Ernie, All. LETS which is equivalent to zero interest on
conventional money, is a simple concept there is nothing
incredible about it.

JCT: Sure, all we have to do to fix conventional money is to
restrict the banks' computers to a pure service charge and
abolish the interest charge, no matter what medium for the
tokens you use.

MG: What is incredible is the usury bearing system's ability
to con people in spite of the simplicity of LETS.

JCT: Mesmerized by idol worship? Mammon? As predicted? It's
the shattering of the false idol that makes the story epic.
It's hard to admit one's been conned, especially when no one
else will admit it first.

MG: What is also incredible is how people exalt themselves
for having seen the simplicity of LETS versus all the others
who don't.

JCT: Well, in the land of the deaf, hearing without hearing,
and the blind, seeing without hearing or understanding, so
keeping one eye or one ear open is a rather rare talent.
Compared to the see-no-hope debt slaves who do not see how
the world  could be better, the agony by we hopeful who do
see how the world could become Heaven on Earth has to far
more acute.

MG: Those who don't see are victims of a terrible
psychological torture and therefore cannot be held
responsible.

JCT: It's called musical chairs for food, life-support
resources. Playing an elimination economic game makes people
play the way they do in order to kill or be killed under the
law of the jungle. Musical chairs for life conditions people
to love the life-support ticket. Mammon.

MG: That leaves all those who understand and run the system
and those who understand and fight the system.

JCT: Must be one heck of a coercion to have R&R power and
let the usury continue. At the dawn of the 20th century,
there was little war, new power and energy sources, a Heaven
in the making. But the bankers in charge chose to finance
wars and strife rather than production and life and the
stinking bloody mess they've turned the planet into is
proven every night on TV cops and murder shows. Mankind
pushed to such graphic depravity because the men who ran the
money system chose to finance the world that way.

We're now going to get a feel for the new world financed the
social currencies way real soon. How long do you think it
will take a sharp guy like Hugo Chavez to figure out the
advantages of making use of his social currencies all over
the world. He'll soon be running the first national branch
of UNILETS. It's almost here.

MG: Of the latter, there are those that make the fight their
personal life vindication and of this category, there are:
1) Those who attempt to maximize their personal merit often
by making the problem more esoteric in support of the
illusion that they possess a unique acumen.

JCT: But these can't come to the victory parade because they
opted out of helping engineer the winning machine.

MG: 2) Those who attempt all and any means of expressing the
problem and solution (i.e. zero interest) to dismantle all
and any bogus arguments in defense of usury.

JCT: Well, I fit in here. My favorite quote is from Math of
Gambling Professor Walt Schneider cited in the Great
Canadian Character Anthology: "He went from totally
apolitical to running for everything. One day his interest
in interest was nonexistent, the next day it was the single
motivating factor in his life." Once you see the horror of
inflicting death-gamble on humans, and how poverty
conditions many into monsters, there is justification for
making borrowers have to pay back more than the bankers
created in the loan. Mort-gage. Death-Gamble. Never enough
for all to live.

MG: 3) Those who seek to reverse the psychological damage
and erroneous behavior resulting from living unwittingly in
the usury paradigm.

JCT: I don't have much time to work on symptoms when
focusing on the cause seems to be paying off.

MG: Only when we are truly realized as human beings, can we
have the patience required for 2) and the empathy required
for 3) without a tinge of 1).

JCT: The parable of the seeds best explains the reactions
when Jesus described UNILETS heaven. Some seeds gets crushed
on the road, some get gobbled by the birds, some land in the
ditch, grow for awhile but are then strangled by the weeds
of life but when a seed lands on good earth, it produces a
hundredfold. See my Bible Monetary Reform poem.

MG: Finally, those who understand and run the system are the
most damaged and their behavior is simply evil.

JCT: Or coerced by circumstances? Having a tiger by the
tail? The best ruling conspiracies have something on
everyone in the group. No one can fight how it's always been
done. Only an outsider they trust and leave alone to work
reform can succeed. Especially an outsider who isn't bent on
punishing in condemnation for past bad deeds but on partying
in reward for future good deeds.

MG: I am not sure whether there are many of these, but of
those who "run" the system, the ones that understand surely
dominate as only they can exact the leverage necessary to
make the system persist as it does. Best, Marc

JCT: Must be quite a fearsome coercion, n'est-ce-pas?
---

Other writers on ijccr:

>Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 22:15:49 +1300
>From: Peter Wilson <wilsong@...>
>Subject: Re: Them secret banksters

PW: It all depends just on how 'local' that bank is. If it's
a branch, or owned either in part or whole by a larger bank,
then that 'secret cabal' of foreign people might be
benefiting. However, if it's a local institution like a
credit union or building society, then that shouldn't be
your main worry. I take a pragmatic approach to such
institutions - sure, they do lend out money at interest, and
they do create money simply by issuing debt, but they are
local, and the profits off that banking remain local. Not
ideal, but better than a lot of options.

Personally, I don't like to get myself stuck into an "us
versus them" paradigm when thinking about monetary system
reform. Human beings are neither totally good nor totally
bad, so to imagine us monetary system reformers as the good
guys, and to write off the faceless overseas bankers as bad
is counter-productive. It will only make the battle harder
and longer. What we have here is a system, inherited down
through the generations, that rewards selfish, greedy
behavior. Some people are more affected by this than others.
Fix the system, and you'll wipe out a lot of the bad
behavior by those particular individuals and society in
general.

JCT: Add another chair and the death-gamble ceases.

PW: Demurrage charges are the main way of achieving such a
system change.

JCT: Good analysis, bad prescription. Focusing on the medium
when the problem is the positive feedback on the medium.

PW: My approach might be classified as naive,

JCT: No, he must have heard or read about time service
charges, so that's disingenuous, deliberately, not naively,
choosing to remain in error.

PW: but I feel it's a more positive way of looking at the
issue. Instead of blaming the problems of the money system
on humans, blame them on the system.

JCT: True. But blame the right wire.

PW: That way, more energy can be directed at change,

JCT: Change in the wrong direction must be avoided.

PW: without getting negative about individual people.
Regards Peter Wilson Living Economies, New Zealand

JCT: I object to writers who never learned to ride their
LETS machines other than backwards but bad-mouth my UNILETS
machine or profess erroneous expert opinion on banking
systems engineering that contradicts the blueprints of
what's wrong and what makes it right. Blame the system but
mis-identify the malfunctioning feedback as the need for
negative feedback rather than the need to eliminate the
positive one.
---

Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 15:46:46 +0000 (GMT)
From: hugh barnard <hughbarnardlists@...>
Subject: Re: Them secret banksters

HB: Peter I agree wholeheartedly with this...

JCT: Wholeheartedly wrong?

HB: first thing is that 'being against' often wastes energy
that is better spent on creating alternatives.

JCT: Alternative currencies, that is the big one.

HB: Secondly, I tend to believe now that finance and economy
has an 'ecology' and that some diversity is to be
encouraged. I believe less and less that there's a 'magic
bullet' solution.

JCT: We get to hear from those who don't see the global
vision for our global village. He can't see UNILETS as the
magic bullet but he likes the demurrage canard in Barnard's
barn-yard.

HB: I'd be suspicious of (what I call) the 'Animal Farm'
effect, one large orthodoxy supplants another and they
become, pretty much, indistinguishable.

JCT: Presume a big change isn't.....?

HB: The second point also touches on tensions between time-
based systems, LETS,

JCT: Tensions between a 1/s time-based system and 1/s LETS
energy-based systems because they don't realize that Power
times time = equals Energy too. Human energy?

HB: local FIAT etc. etc.

JCT: He knows what "fiat money" is. I don't. If I and
neighbors can pay our tax with the government's paper,
what's bad about that fiat? Interest-free government money
is fiat money too. Fiat money pays taxes. So what's wrong
with fiat money? Do all these 1/s systems confuse him?
Another barn-yard canard.

HB: As long as these systems are local, there's actually
space for people to choose and for the systems to evolve,
prove themselves (or not!) etc. Best regards Hugh
http://hughbarnard.org

JCT: Are we to beware when these systems are no longer
local... when UNILETS goes on-line?




--
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: [ijccr] Digest Number 1278
>Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:13:19 -0600
>From: Levi Philos <leviphilos@...>
>Subject: Time as Money

LP: It is a truth of human history that today's generation
is the beneficiary of yesterday's generation. The yet unborn
will be the beneficiaries of the efforts of today.

While the dead did expend effort that are of benefit to the
living today, we owe no food nor shelter to the dead as they
need neither. Tomorrow's unborn supply neither food nor
shelter, but efforts must be expended today to assure
continuation of the species. What is true is that all needs
of all humans alive today are supplied by living adults
generally between the ages of 18 and 70.

A fully rational money system would reflect favorably upon
these truths. Human time, itself an intangible, symbolically
represented would be something transitory with mechanisms to
assure that the time symbol would be used when available
just as human time must be used when available.

JCT: Memory stores my credit just fine. Crediting it to my
account does better. You'll help me on my work-bee when my
house is hit by lightning because I helped you on your work-
bee when your barn was hit by tornado.

LP: Gold and other precious metals serve well as fungible
mediums of savings and for insurance like performance bond
roles.

JCT: So does the wood or plastic of my poker chips.

LP: Gold stops lying, but the efforts must be expended
today.

JCT: Plastic and wood stops lying 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

>Subject: [ijccr] Digest Number 1277
>Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 10:43:59 -0600
>From: Levi Philos <leviphilos@...>
>Subject: Gaian Democracies by Madron & Jopling

Extracted from the book Gaian Democracies - Redefining
Globalisation and People-power by
Roy Madron and John Jopling, Green Books 2003:

M&J: "It is not widely known that almost all the money we
use comes into existence, not by governments creating it,
but as a result of a bank agreeing to make a loan to a
customer at interest. Only about 3% - the notes and coins -
is government-made. The other 97% comes into existence as a
debt owed by a customer to a bank. The effect of this is
that our economies have to grow in order to avoid financial
collapse. The debt-money system

JCT: So Roy Madron and John Jopling get this wrong. The
instability in the Laplace Transform Equation 1/(s-i) of
the banking system is the positive feedback "i," not the
debt medium the feedback is working on. Count your chops in
debt or asset, for cash or credit, doesn't matter. Never
did. I banked games were we all put up cash and games where
we all put up IOU credits. No difference. Only introducing
the positive feedback of interest is the problem. Imagine,
another "book" by experts on the banking system who flunked
their basic course in banking systems engineering
blueprints. Har har har har.

Misdirecting attention to "money created as a debt rather than
asset" instead of the positive feedback on debt, is a
failure. It's not the medium condemned by Bhudda, Isaiah,
Jesus and Mohammed, it was the interest on the medium. But
we have these experts who say that it's the debt-money
rather than the interest-on-money. Every time I hear the
word "debt-money," I think Moron or Mole. And since they
orate on shepherding, false shepherds whether they knew it
or not, and they ignore the banking system blueprints while
status to offer expert opinion, I have to take the time to
demonstrate their technical errors.

M&J: The debt-money system is thus the driving force behind
the economy.

JCT: The driving force is the explosive positive feedback
money system, whether based on debt or asset.

M&J: The risk of collapse forces governments to give
priority to strategies that serve the money growth
imperative; and in turn, these strategies produce the unjust
and unsustainable form of globalisation that we have today."

JCT: Sure, analyzing how mort-gage forces people and
governments to react is easy.

M&J: Chapter 3 "The Global Monetocracy" expands as follows:

"The debt money system itself has been described in earlier
Schumacher Briefings by James Robertson and Richard
Douthwaite.

JCT: Robertson should know better as he's involved with the
Christian Council for Monetary Reform and Richard Douthwaite
was a luminary of the LETS movement who unsubscribed to
information on UNILETS so it's no wonder they're supporting
another wild goose into error.

M&J: They show that almost all the money we use (i.e. all
except the notes and coins, which today are about 3% of the
total) came into existence as a result of a bank agreeing to
make a loan to a customer, at interest. This is why it is
called "debt-money".

JCT: Ah, they call loans with interest "debt-money." What
would they call loans with no interest "debt-money?" So they
identify the dangerous positive feedback but title the
problem on the medium. That's pretty incompetent.

M&J: This system has several extremely important
consequences. First, it gives the banks a free lunch. They
are, in effect, able to print money and lend it out at
interest. Bank profits from this source alone in the USA,
UK, Eurozone and Japan are about $140 billion per year. It
is quite outrageous that the banks should have this power.
More: http://www.feasta.org/documents/docs/susdevcom.htm

JCT: Bankers would argue what he calls a "free lunch" is
simply what they should be paid. So the Madron-Jopling Duo
offer the bankers and easy argument to knock down, an Alan
Young specialty I've seen before. Always make sure that when
Turmel's going to win something big, like the 4000 medpot
charges stayed, position the Judas Goat to take the credit
and lead the herd astray.

M&J: Other hits to a search for Madron & Jopling, Gaian
Democracies are:
http://integralvisioning.org/article.php?story=3Dp2p99
and the same page, but printer friendly:
http://integralvisioning.org/article.php?story=3Dp2p99&mode=3Dprint

A review of the book from Prosperity UK:
http://www.prosperityuk.com/articles_and_reviews/book_reviews/gaian.php
A co-op site offers segments or reviews of the book:
http://open.coop/Background+docs

JCT: That's my review of this newest book on banking systems
engineering. An F for this duplicitous duo of deception.
Dupes or Dupers. Probably dupers given all the truth out
there.

>Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 19:56:28 -0000
>From: "cwilli5210" <CWilli5210@...>
>Subject: New IJCCR journal articles
Dear list members
If you go to the IJCCR journal (www.le.ac.uk/ulmc/ijccr),
you will find two new articles just loaded into the 2006
volume, by first Rolf Schroeder and second, Bernard Lietaer
et al.  This makes a grand total of four article in just the
first month or so of 2006. I look forward to further
articles being received. Colin
Professor Colin C Williams  Editor, IJCCR

JCT: Arrrrgggg. Bankster Bernard, Mr. Pan-social-currencies
Lietaer. He made eight mistakes in 13 lines of banking
systems engineering analysis that I could bet on and he had
to back down from all eight. Wish I had time to parse his
latest desultory, I'm sure, contribution.



--
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: Another victim of prohibition fights back. Not part of
the Narc Emery "Confess and plead guilty" movement.

>Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006
>From: cisco_117@... (cisco_117)
>Subject: First appearance in court today!
>To: MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com

DF: Hello Everyone, Went to court today on s 7(1) and p for
p + two breaches thinking my motion to quash was going to be
heard but the crown didn't have time to read it, I was in
front of a JP anyways!

Its actually my second appearance but legal aid wasn't ready
yet. I have a lawyer b/c my wife is charged too, I want to
get her charges withdrawn as she has nothing to do with my
medicine. I did an affidavit stating that all mj was mine
b/c I use medicinally.

JCT: You're lucky you don't have kids they could charge too.
When they busted Doug and Laurie Nielsen who also admitted
ownership, they busted the daughter anyway. Same for when
they busted later-exemptee Richard Johnson and his wife,
they busted the daughter too. They hope the threat to ruin
the child's life will coerce them into pleading guilty.

DF: It has been remanded to next Tues. to see if crown will
agree to drop charges against my wife so she can return to
work as an educational assistant, what she loves to do. I
will then put my motion over till Thursday. So, I asked my
lawyer to deal with my motion to quash, he said he hadn't
looked it over yet! Good thing too! John has told me to do
the motion to prohibit first before superior court. I will
prepare motion to prohibit and have it ready for next
Thursday to serve the crown, putting off the motion to quash
until I get a hearing in the superior court.

JCT: That way, like Max Cornelssen, you get two shots at
killing the charge before going north on appeal.

DF: My lawyer said he couldn't be there on Thursday, I said,
that's fine I could do the motion to quash on my own, he
said that's fine that he would help me after he gets back. I
guess I should have told him that we will be going to
superior court first! Oops,. I didn't know! Well, the crown
looks confused already. I want to leave him alone so he
drops charges against my wife. lol.

So,now I'm on the hunt for someone who has been convicted of
sec.4(1) so John can overturn their conviction, maybe my
lawyer knows of some!

JCT: Finding someone who was convicted while the law was
invalid to demand that their invalid conviction be
overturned, the first of the 100,000 Parker Scandal
mistakes, that's the killer card for the Crown.

DF: What did you call that John? Royal Flush?? lol. I'm
going to the poker table now! Keep everyone posted!

JCT: It's the big one. Asking for an extension of time to
appeal the invalid conviction is the move that most hurts
the Crown by exposing the Parker Scandal and it's 100,000
victims. That's where it hurts.

DF: Thanks to John And Terry for helping out, I'm a little
more relaxed anyways. Derek

JCT: Now that you are on offence and being a medical user,
you really don't have anything to worry about if the Krieger
right of the sick to cultivate their medicine stands up.



--
Abolitionist Slave Leader John C."The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
for UNILETS interest-free time-based currency in U.N. resolution C6
to Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel 519-753-0645 USENET: can.politics

JCT: I've always felt so but never had the chance to comment
on Thomas More's book "Utopia" until now:

>Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 02:58:18 +0000
>From: JamesTaris@... (James Taris)
>Subject: [LETS_linkup] UTOPIA and LETS

JT: I've just finished reading Utopia. What a revelation!

JCT: It sure was a great little book. Gold only used for
ornaments for children, other fun ideas. Now electronics.

JT: This book was written in 1515 by Sir Thomas More (even
though he was knighted, in the end, King Henry VIII still
chopped off his head!) and has been the role model for many
countries and societies ever since - all adding their own
twist to the Utopia model and experiencing different levels
of success. When I began the book, I had no idea what lay in
store for me. My understanding of Utopia didn't go much
further than thinking it was a kind of paradise, full-stop.
But as I read, I realised that in so many ways, it was like
a big LETS group!

JCT: One big LETS group! That's UNILETS. When everyone is
financially connected to everyone else including their
governments without banker middlemen raking the use of our
currency, that's Utopia. Which explains why I've been called
"utopian," meant to denigrate since every speaker knew
Utopia was just a fantasy, not an engineering possibility.
Until The UNILETS Engineer showed up with Utopia's money
software. I've always called the end result of interest-free
banking for all "Eden" but "Utopia" is okay too. Eden's even
more fanciful a political promise. Know anyone else other
than John The Engineer promising to program the banks'
computers to give us Eden? Luckily, with President Hugo
Chavez setting up the Utopian currency software, Eden on the
way has gone way past The Engineer's blueprint promises to
Hugo  Chavez's engineering delivery.

JT: Everyone in Utopia works and everyone prospers. But
there is no money! Even gold and silver are valueless. In
fact, they consider precious metals to be so worthless "they
make their chamber pots and close-stools of gold and
silver"!

JCT: That's all very nice but we need accounting to plan
optimum use of our resources so trying to do that without a
medium of exchange is unnecessarily silly. Get rid of the
feedback on the medium, not the medium.

JT: They all work in areas that are helpful to their local
communities and deliver their produce to the market place.
In exchange they collect whatever they need for their
families.

JCT: Nice in eras of abundance how to fairly allocate
shortages of resources without a medium of exchange in a
free market.

JT: They don't have any desire to take more than they can
use because there is no benefit to them. As there is no
money, they cannot sell any excess for personal gain.

JCT: Again, that's nice where there's abundance but the
bidding process is useful in fairly allocating scarcity.
Medium of exchange is necessary and a world where no one's
counting doesn't mean a world where we don't need to count.
We do need to evaluate our resources and getting rid of the
whole 1/s medium of exchange rather than just the
instability is silly.
JT: Anyway, if they are ever short on anything, they know
they can always go back to the market and get more of
whatever they need.

JCT: Sounds like one big family larder and that's how a LETS
larder would work too.

JT: One particular passage also caught my attention because
it related so closely to my recent LETS travels around the
world, where I exchanged my speaking services for
accommodation, meals, etc  "If any man has a mind to travel
only over the precinct of his own city, he may freely do it,
with his father's permission and his wife's consent; but
when he comes into any of the country houses, if he expects
to be entertained by them, he must labour with them and
conform to their rules; and if he does this, he may freely
go over the whole precinct, being then as useful to the city
to which he belongs as if he were still within it. Thus you
see that there are no idle persons among them, nor pretences
of excusing any from labour."

JCT: And that's what life would be like if you could
register your Hours of labor to your UNILETS account
wherever you are on the whole planet. Land somewhere, trade
labor for what you want and then move along and do it again.
And again. With a line of credit. Remember how my online
acknowledgments of the Time Owed for my 1999 European LETS
Tour are all I needed to use my Internet LETS account
anywhere at all. I owe time in Austria, Belgium, Finnland,
France, Germany, Sweden and don't need to earn it in those
nations, just return it wherever I can. So UNILETS is simply
Utopia with accounting.

JT: It is understandable why this book - written nearly 500
years ago - has attracted a continuous readership all these
years. It is a book full of hope - for us and for our
future.

JCT: It's Eden without the accounting software. UNILETS is
Eden with the accounting software.

JT: If you would like to read it, you can get a non-password
protected .PDF copy (suitable for use on all computers) from
www.Honey-BeeBooks.com for only $1.99. This is a non-
copyright ebook, so you can read it (or copy it) and pass it
on. http://www.Honey-BeeBooks.com/classic-More-Utopia.htm
for more information about the book. Hoping that LETS can
become the Utopia it can truly be for you,
James Taris www.LETS-Linkup.com JamesTaris@...

JCT: Sounds like you've seen the glolbal UNILETS vision too.
Now all we have to do is get more presidents to endorse 1/s
currency or Millennium Declaration Resolution C6 to
Governments for an interest-free UNILETS time-based
currency.



--
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: Led by a leader who admits he's against growing new
brain cells is scaring not just me:

>Sunday, February 12, 2006
>Saner drug laws go up in smoke
>MINDELLE JACOBS, Columnist
>Edmonton Sun

MJ: It's back to Square One for everyone who's been
advocating the decriminalization of marijuana possession now
that the tough-on-crime folks are in power. Not that there's
anything wrong with punishing real lawbreakers. But do we
want to continue burdening tens of thousands of Canadians a
year with criminal records because they toke up to relax
instead of drinking?

JCT: Unless there's a hidden agenda.

MJ: We came closer than ever to crafting saner drug laws
with the Liberal plan to decriminalize the possession for
personal use of less than 15 grams of marijuana.

JCT: She didn't read about them being invalidated, only the
resurrection made the news she got to read.

MJ: (I personally agree with the Senate committee that
recommended pot be legalized and regulated like booze, but
decriminalization would have been a huge step in the right
direction.) That's all a hazy pot dream now, however. The
Conservatives will bury that idea faster than David Emerson
jilted the Grits to join Stephen Harper's cabinet.

JCT: Presumes a totally dense thought process.

MJ: What a terrible rebuke to sound public policy. Experts
have been reiterating for years that marijuana is not a
gateway drug to worse substances and that, in fact, there
never was a good reason to ban pot in the first place. The
gateway is not pot, it's the black market, explained an
astute Senator Pierre Claude Nolin several years ago. Nolin
was the chair of the special Senate committee on illegal
drugs that proposed the legalization of pot in a persuasive
2002 report.

JCT: And don't forget my generation's Ledain Report.

MJ: With the new regime in Ottawa, unfortunately,
progressive drug reform will go up in smoke.

JCT: I'm glad they're not going to re-legislate a law that I
argue remains invalid to this day without re-legislation.

MJ: The Conservatives won't ban abortion. They know
Canadians wouldn't stand for it. They'll likely leave same-
sex marriage alone because they don't want a court battle
over the issue. So they'll concentrate on cracking down on
crime - a sure winner with Canadians who are fed up with our
revolving-door justice system. Tough mandatory minimum
sentences for gun-related crimes, as the Tories have
promised, are welcome, as is an overhaul of the conditional
sentencing program that lets even criminals convicted of
serious crimes lounge around under house arrest.

But shying away from decriminalizing marijuana is political
cowardice based on blind ideology.

JCT: And everyone knows there's no arguing with blind
ideology.

MJ: Three-quarters of reported drug incidents annually are
for cannabis and most of the cannabis-related offences are
for pot possession. Ask yourself if this is the best use of
our crime-fighting resources. Wouldn't you rather the police
devote their efforts to more serious crimes? Even the
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police favours the
decriminalization of pot for personal use.

JCT: Everyone's logical except the guys in power! Is it an
an accidental occurrence?

MJ: If the Conservatives are worried about how they're going
to implement their promised GST cut without cutting
services, there's an easy solution. Legalize pot and tax it.
They won't do it, of course.

JCT: Of course, we must presume intransigent density.

MJ: It's sound policy and it would generate lots of cash to
treat people addicted to the really dangerous drugs, like
coke and meth, but talking to the Tories about drug reform
is like talking to the wall.

JCT: This build up the pretext that they are illogically
obstinate and argues nothing can be done.

MJ: As for the medicinal marijuana program, perhaps they'll
try to cancel that, too.

JCT: They can't. It's their only pretext to keeping the
prohibition alive. Remember, the courts ordered the law was
invalid absent an exemption system so getting rid of the
exemption system they've built not to work would eliminate
it's function as a pretext for prohibition.

MJ: Health Canada's original five-year contact with Prairie
Plant Systems, which grows the country's medicinal pot in an
unused underground mine in Manitoba, expired in December and
was given a six-month extension by the former Liberal
government. Will it still be around in June or will the
Conservatives pull the plug on the operation?

JCT: They can't pull the plug since the MMAR that has never
been proven to not work in Alberta like in Ontario is the
only thing keeping prohibition alive in Alberta. Not that
the MMAR works to keep it alive but that Justice Read ruled
it was kept alive by the presumption the MMAR worked in ALTA
while not working everywhere else. One of the worst
decisions I've ever had the privilege to puke over.

MJ: (Government-grown pot hasn't exactly been a hit. Of the
approximately 1,200 Canadians allowed to possess marijuana
for medical purposes, only about 280 are buying either dried
pot or seeds from the government stash.)

JCT: Doesn't matter, they need the pretext that they have
complied with Parker!

MJ: Toronto lawyer Alan Young

JCT: Always calling on the Judas Goat who claims is Hitzig
case brought prohibition that Parker had invalidated back to
life.

MJ: says if the Tories abandon the medical marijuana
program, the courts will likely force Ottawa to
decriminalize marijuana possession.

JCT: The court said that if the exemption system goes
absent, the prohibition becomes absent with it. Young says
that if the exemption system goes absent, he'll have to go
back to the courts again to say so! Always work for his
shyster cabal.

MJ: "I'd love to go back to court and get rid of the
prohibition (on possession)," he says.

JCT: I can understand that the medpot champion who ineptly
brought the law back to life might want a shot at correcting
his mistake but he brought it back to life with the
connivance of the Crown judicial back-room boys and girls.

MJ: "I don't think this government has the ability to
backpedal on this program."

JCT: With Alan Young telling everyone that the new failure
of the new MMAR would need more court time before it became
official, who'll believe that the prohibition becomes absent
wit the absence of the exemption system.

Contact: mailbag@...



--
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 am John "The Engineer" Turmel, in the Guinness Book
of Record for having contested the most races for your
political office in history.

My politics are simple:
Cops out of gambling, sex, drugs and rock&roll,
Interest-free accounts at the Bank of Canada's computer.

Though never elected in 60 runs, I have accomplished much on
the national and international stages.

As new members of the House of Commons, you will be
receiving my regular postings on engineering my kind of
heaven.

Google or Wikipedia for John The Engineer Turmel for
background or visit my homepage.




--
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: cinephobia@...

The Cinephobia Show on CKLN http:www.ckln.fm will be airing
a live interview with John The Engineer Turmel later today
at 2:30-3:00pm EST about the topics covered in the Chris &
Chad Csomor documentary DVD from http:www.turmelmovie.com

Could someone tape it for me?

I did an interview with Stuart Andrews last year where we
talked about the Money Documentary by Isaac Isatan which let
me make fun of Avi Lewis and Naomi Kleins stab at trying to
explain the Latin American Financial Miracle without
discussing the new social currency systems that now abound.
Cover stories like Alan Young's Hitzig case gets credit for
Terry Parker's win, so too, Organized Force is touted as the
solution rather than interest-free credit.

http://www.ckln.fm/listen/listen.html



--
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, 02 Feb 2006 00:34:51 +0000
>From: preston1953@... (preston1953)
>Subject: [MedPot-discuss] Re: File - timeline.txt
>To: MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com

P: Thank you Mr. John for your efforts to document the story
of challenging prohibition and its laws. Now Mr. Turmel as
an expert on the cannabis laws, would you say that the
rulings of December 10th, 1997 is the moment the courts
ordered Canada to make allowances for medpot?

JCT: It's when Parker's Judge Sheppard established Parker's
right to his prohibited herbal anti-seizure medication.

P: You repeatedly give Terry Parker recognition for leading
the court to strike down the cannabis possession laws in
Section 4. Do you give Terry Parker an equal respect for
employing the courts leading to the order to implement a
working MMJ program?

JCT: The Crown did not appeal the judge granting him an
exemption under Section 7(1) cultivation but did appeal the
judge granting him an exemption under Section 4(1)
possession. There was no order to implement a working
medical marijuana exemption program. The Parker Court of
Appeal #1 declared the prohibition invalid. The Government
only needed to do something for Parker if it wanted to keep
the herb illegal for everyone who was not sick.

P: I realize everything in the future is speculation, but
when do you see the probable outcome of Terry Parker's
present efforts before the Supreme Court happening and what
do you see as the outcome of those rulings?

JCT: Parker is challenging the Hitzig Resurrection. He's
saying that when they declared that the MMAR had failed to
save the CDSA, that the CDSA is deemed to have been repealed
and remains invalid and the CDSA is not deemed to have
merely been absent two years pending the Hitzig
Resurrection by the courts.

P: I can accept you and Marc Paquette and Terry Parker as
heroes in the fight to end the policy of prohibition. But
with respect to Terry could you please answer Part A -
Didn't Soros back Terry Parker at an earlier time? Part B-
Why do you think he abandoned him, poster boy as you say,
when Health Canada did nothing more than to obstruct the
medicinal potential of cannabis and do you think a continued
support would have avoided the Hitzig decision?

JCT: I appreciate that Soros paid for his original lawyer.
Whether he should have paid his lawyer to then go collect
Parker's win isn't mine to criticize. That his lawyer
wouldn't move to declare the MMAR a failure was the real
agony. One year later, his client had no exemption, had not
been saved, and he did nothing without being paid first. So
he did nothing.

P: And this raises a philosophical question for the man that
likes to talk about money. If right now a benefactor were to
come with an unlimited budget to kill the laws, what course
of action should he take to see that the courts recognize
that the possession and cultivation laws are dead?

JCT: I would finance self-defence kits and someone to stand
outside every courthouse in the country getting people to
bring them into their duty counsels and demanding they argue
the Hitzig Resurrection is a crime and the lawyers and
judges are accomplices if they don't stop.

P: As the person to make the boldest move ever to strike
down the trafficing laws, what would you say would be the
best course of action to take to strike down those laws if a
benefactor said that money was no object?

JCT: Trafficking goes down with the possession and
cultivation sections no matter that the Ontario Court of
Appeal says laws don't have to be precisely written because
the courts will remember which don't count and which do.

P: I thank you for answering my last questions, Mr. Turmel.

>Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 18:41:47 -0800
>From: willwrld@... (Noreen Evers)
>Subject: Re: [MedPot-discuss] Re: File - timeline.txt
>John - I'll answer them for you:

> Thank you Mr. John for your efforts to document the story
> of challenging prohibition and its laws. Now Mr. Turmel
> as an expert on the cannabis laws, would  you say that the
> rulings of December 10th, 1997 is the moment the courts
> ordered Canada to make allowances for medpot?

No. The Judge gave Terry a PERSONAL exemption from the laws,
and the appeal court gave it for everyone.

> You repeatedly give Terry Parker recognition for leading
> the court to strike down the cannabis possession laws in
> Section 4.

Correct, thank you Terry.

> Do you give Terry Parker an equal respect for employing
> the courts leading to the order to implement a working
> MMJ program?

???????Why?? The Court STRUCK the prohibition. The GOVT
enacted the (not-working) MMJ program, only because they say
"They were forced to by the Courts". If you are speaking of
the 'Hitzig Court of Appeal', that wasn't Terry asking about
a 'working' govt program - it was the Hitzigs only.

> I realize everything in the future is speculation, but
> when do you see the probable outcome of Terry Parker's
> present efforts before the Supreme Court happening

Who knows when, it usually takes about 9 months just to get
leave to appeal, and then maybe another couple of years
before the case is actually heard.

JCT: It could be faster. Usually, leave to appeal is sought
within 30 days. Then the Crown has their 60 days to
respond, then you I think 15 to Reply and then it's sent off
to a panel of 3 judges who let it in or not. I'd bet it
would get in which is why it had to be aborted by one back-
room judge and the Registry.

> and what do you see as the outcome of those rulings?

Answered at SCC decision at Malmo Levine. Can you find it?
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/2003/2003scc74.html
(I'll give you a couple of days to find the answer on your
own first).

JCT: The Hitzig's sought leave to appeal on the grounds they
wanted the provincial courts to supervise the delivery of
pot by the Feds, something so stupid as to a wonderful joke,
which was rejected. My challenge to the Resurrection Order
was aborted by judge Binnie on the grounds one signed
document had been submitted late. Paquette's challenge was
aborted by the clerk because he was associated with Turmel.
And only Parker's challenge to the Resurrection at the top
remains. And the clerk's are trying to sleaze him out
without a 3-judge panel too, just like they did me.

And of course, we're all appealing the Hitzig resurrection
in the Ontario Court of Appeal now and in the Alberta Court
of Appeal now on the way to the top. Whether they let Parker
in or not, we'll be back at the top soon after the March 18
hearing with no way for one-back-room judge to abort our
challenges.

> I can accept you and Marc Paquette and Terry Parker as
> heroes in the fight to end the policy of prohibition. But
> with respect to Terry could you please answer Part A-
> Didn't Soros back Terry Parker at an earlier time?

Don't know that one. Does it matter?

JCT: I was fascinated to find out that he had.

> Part B- Why do you think he abandoned him, poster boy as
> you say,

Don't care.

JCT: I'd be fascinated to find out why.

> when Health Canada did nothing more than to obstruct the
> medicinal potential of cannabis and do you think a
> continued support would have avoided the Hitzig decision?

I would hope not. If it were to be so, then that would mean
our judges can be bought!!!!

JCT: The question was whether Soros financing Terry going
for the declaration that died on Terry Parker Day instead of
non-lawyer Turmel doing it for him would have made a
difference. I would think so but not as a question of
whether judges can be bought. I think the coercion is a lot
more powerful than money for judges to be responsible in
public for the deaths of thousands of Canada's epileptics.

> what would you say would be the best course of action to
> take to strike down those laws if a benefactor said that
> money was no object?

I would definitely appreciate some assistance in the money
field. I would love to have a secretary to do the typing,
and a researcher or two, $$ for photocopies, cost of
transcripts, - if I lose my case, or if I win only part
(based on my judge having to be bound by the Kubby decision)

JCT: Another losing Alan Young - Narc Emery contribution to
the medpot cause.

- the cost for the transcripts and appeal books will
probably be in the $2000.00 + range. It would also be
helpful to hire some legal assistance in the "how to" area.
I don't know if they have court here, or if I am required to
travel, lunch is nice, etc, etc.

JCT: That's the problem with including everything card in
the deck you can find when a couple of Aces should do.

(Just in case you really want an answer, I have 7.1
(cultivation) and 5.2 (over 3 kg) purpose for trafficking
charges, and 3 challenges: 1.  Issues of law challenge
(Only to be heard at the BC Court of Appeal as this Judge is
bound by Kubby decision);

JCT: Go ahead and tell us again how Kubby binds your judge.
We need quick short explanations of the Judas Goat cases.
EG: The Malmo-Levine case they always cite for the
government's power to criminalize means they have the power
to do it, not that they did it after the law had been struck
down.
The Hitzig resurrection is ultra vires. Way beyond their
authority. Other judges bowing to that authority and
persecuting citizens should be tried like Nazis were.

2.  MMAR Charter 7, 12 and 15 challenge; and
3.  Division of Powers challenge

> I thank you for answering my last questions, Mr. Turmel.

So, really, it wasn't John, it's Noreen.  Hope you're happy.

JCT: Anyway Noreen, you turned your case into an expensive
head-ache to appeal. One advantage of Turmel's KISS theory.

>Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 19:22:07 -0800 (PST)
>From: preston1953@... (Mike Preston)
>Subject: Re: [MedPot-discuss] Re: File - timeline.txt

P: I asked John and not you. I could not care less how
you answer them.

JCT: I appreciated her trying while I was busy and she did a
pretty good job but I know she was a bit curt. Not
important.

>Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 23:50:24 +0000
>From: buds_4_life@... (doug_laurie_nielsen)
>Subject: [MedPot-discuss] Re: File - timeline.txt
>To: MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com

Are these questions for real? If you had read anything that
was in the time line or on this site, you would be able to
answer those questions yourself.

We don't mean to speak for John but, an unlimited amount of
money wouldn't change the game plan. Except you could hire a
lawyer & pay him the big bucks, but that wouldn't do much
good since they don't have the balls to do what John does.

Although, an unlimited amount of money would allow John the
opportunity to concentrate more on his prohibition work
instead of having to be at the casino working all the time.
John has put 10000000% into his work just to watch those
involved in the Hitzig resurection attempt to screw
everything up. Most intelligent people will tell you that it
all started with Terry Parker & it will all end with Terry
Parker.
We're just pawns, here to keep the Crown Attorney's of
Ontario on their toes, poke them in the ribs, pinch them &
maybe even annoy them a little, until Terry finishes them
off. D & L

JCT: I've seen a lot of games won by the right pawn in the
right place at the right time. You won us the Edward-Smith
admission, our Nielsen card:

Judge Edward: Where does the Court of Appeal get the power
to resurrect a statute that's been struck down?
Crown Smith: I can't provide any but they wouldn't have if
they couldn't have so they can. And you're bound to obey.
Judge Edward: Let the prosecution continue.

Like the Cornelssen card, where Crown Scott Couper admits
Iovinelli's motion to lift the the functus officio Interim
order staying Acton's Krieger invalidation of S.7(1) order
pending appeal had been laughed out of the court.

So many useful cards are won over time and each new warrior
building on the armaments of those who went before.



--
Abolitionist Slave Leader John C."The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
for UNILETS interest-free time-based currency in U.N. resolution C6
to Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel 519-753-0645 USENET: can.politics

JCT: Pierre Drouin called to say that despite not yet having
perfected their appeals against refusals for prohibition,
waiting for transcripts, he and Real Martin have had their
appeals listed for hearing on March 28 2006.

Then I got a letter:

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Osgoode Hall
130 Queen Street West
Toronto Ontario M5H 2N5

Tuesday January 31 2006

Mr. John C. Turmel
8-37 Colborne St. E.
Brantford ON N3T 2G3 CAN,

Dear Mr. Turmel:

Re: R. v. Turmel, John C.
Court of Appeal File Number C44588

This is appeal has been scheduled for hearing on:

Tuesday March 28 2006 at 10:30am

Having reviewed the issues raised in the appeal and
counsels' time estimates in those cases in which the court
has received estimates, the court has assigned a total of 1
hour for the argument of the appeal, allocated as follows:
Total Appellant(s) : 40 minutes
Total Respondent(s): 20 minutes
Total Intervenor(s):

Any party who seeks more time for oral argument or who seeks
to change the date assigned for the hearing of the appeal
must make a motion to the List Judge. Parties may arrange
for a motion before the List Judge by contacting this office
at (416) 327-5035. The Court expects that most of these
motions will be heard by telephone conference call.

All other inquiries should be directed IN WRITING to the
attention of Mary Schirripa either by mail or by fax at 416-
327-6256. Only inquiries in writing will be answered.

If this appeal is settled or abandoned, the parties should
immediately notify this office by mail, by fax, or in case
of urgency, by telephone at 416-327-6321.

John Kromkamp
Senior Legal Officer
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Appeal Scheduling Unit

JCT: So it looks like they're slating everyone for the same
day, even let the faraway boys attend by phone.

The problem is that the transcripts of Pierre and Real's
hearings were ordered but the transcriber is in no rush.
Pierre has the certificate proving he ordered it but it
certainly won't be ready. Yet, since the Crown has prepared
my Appeal Book in my Aitken appeal, and the Nielsens' Appeal
Book, despite the Crown refused to prepare Max Cornelssen's
Appeal Book and that I did my own for these two prohibition
C44587 and certiorari C44588 Appeal Books.

So tomorrow, I'll call the Crown and see if they'll get
moving on the appeal book if Pierre and Real get moving on
their Facta. That's if they want all six of us together or
whether they'll want another panel dealing Pierre and Real
later! Which I doubt.

>Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:15:21 -0800
>From: willwrld@... (Noreen Evers)
>Subject: Re: Medpot-Preview:
>To: turmel@... ("John C. Turmel")

NE: John, Your quash will probably be rejected, as mine, on
the basis of the OCA Hitzig ruling.

JCT: I've already told Judge Belanger he was being called
to higher standard. The question I'm going to show is that
the Order from above he is going to choose to obey is evil.
The Nuremberg trials proved that obeying evil orders from
above were no alibi. The Hitzig Resurrection Order has
resulted in the deaths of thousands, millions if you count
how it slowed down my ending prohibition of the world's
safest medical herb world-wide as the final step.

NE: The "Justice" will not be able to rule on it (as he is
bound by the OCA)

JCT: Sad isn't it? Your B.C. judge says he's bound to accept
the improper resurrection out of another province! I have to
get mine to accept it's an improper resurrection in the
province! And yet, I have no doubt that a question of
preventable genocide and the deliberate inflicting on
Canada's sick conditions of life calculated to bring about
their physical destruction is of enough national importance
to always warrant "extraordinary" relief.

I always ask for the extraordinary relief that the proven
genocide of Canada's epileptics warrants. I'm putting the
next day's blood on the hands of the judge of the moment.
It's the old K-slab routine all the time: From
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/pombank.htm or txt

>LAW
A hundred times I sought injunctions, six right to the top,
In each I sought the order that the interest they stop.
The Interest Act says that you may take most any rate,
Unless another law against it can be found to state.

The laws I found were out of Canada's Criminal Code,
Some laws to fight the mortgage off, it was the legal road.
"Mort" is the section of the mortgage which eliminates,
And causes "death" by poverty which seals so many fates.

The Section 318 says proofs of genocides derive:
"Inflicting on the group conditions where all can't survive."
When we see the foreclosures on our farm capacity,
We know there'll be less food produced, it is a certainty.

JCT: When we see anti-epilepsy medicine denied,
We know there'll be more epileptics taking fatal ride.
(A new verse for the rock opera)

>And since starvation still exists in many a foreign land,
There'll be starvation even more for mankind to withstand.
"Gage" is the section of the mortgage which is vulnerable,
To gambling sections of the code which are invincible.

The Section 197(1)(b)(3) mandates no fee,
"Participation in a gamble must be made for free."
Participating in the mortgage has an interest fee,
So fee charged for a mortgage is a criminality.

Another Code of laws that we must take into account,
The laws contained within the Bible must be paramount.
And finally the Science warns "The deadline's getting near.
This is a case of life and death that you should really fear."

I argued that foreclosures kept our life support less strong.
They had the power to put right the program that's gone wrong.

JCT: I argued prohibition kept our life support less strong.
They had the power to put right oppression that's gone wrong.

>The statements sent to me by banks and credit cards provide,
For interest and service fees both listed side by side.

We could restrict the program to collect the service charge,
Enough the pay the bankers for the service they discharge.
So with those laws, I asked the courts to overrule the Act,
"Abolish interest and make the service charges fact."

JCT: / / / / / / / / / / / / /
Abolish prohibition and make epilepsy end.

>EQUATION OF RESPONSIBILITY
I pointed out they had the might to instantaneously,
Effect repair on our industrial capacity.

JCT: / / / / / / / / / / / / /
End prohibition of their anti-seizure medicine,

>It's just like a conveyer belt with people in a line,
Who fall into abyss of Luciferian design.

If you could press a button and cut power to the beast,
The belt would have momentum but you'd lose the very least.

JCT: These judges could write Orders to cut power to the beast,
Within just days, all would have joints and shortly lose the least.

>With the production maximized of butter, not of guns,
We still could not get there in time for all the weakest ones.

So there would be a finite loss of souls until the day,
When all may access credit and for life support may pay.

JCT: / / / / / / / / / / / / /
When all may access marijuana, tree of life, I say.

>But if you'd waited for a while before you used your might,
You'd lose some extra souls for failing to so expedite.

JCT: Same goes for judges who could have left the tree of life
legalized and made it illegal again.

>And if you had refused to press the button to this day,
It would, on you, the blame for every fallen soul we'd lay.

JCT: / / / / / / / / / / / I say,
On Doherty, Goudge and Simmons, blame for extra losses, lay

>With simple mathematics we can count the number who,
Have perished by inaction of the men with power few.

The number of souls perishing, all due to the delay,
Is equal to the number who do perish on that day.
With 40,000 children dying every single day,
Responsibility belongs to those who had the say.

JCT: With 4 too many epileptics dying every day,
On Doherty, Goudge and Simmons, blame for extra losses, lay

>Since all the judges had the power to compel the banks,
To fix the killer program so they don't deserve our thanks.
The number they must answer for which day to day does climb,
Is equal to the number who have perished since that time.

JCT: / / / / / / / / / / / / /
The same for judges who obeyed Bad Orders from above.

Each motion was a shot on goal, a chance to fix the flaw,
I took as many as I could but interest is law.
JUDGES RESPONSIBLE
Six times I went right to the top and all to no avail,
Since they found it too hard to grasp, the motions all did fail.

The judges all ruled that they failed to see what they could do,
They could not change the software to the service charges few.
And though I tried a hundred times to get the software switched,
The banking system seems to have the judges all bewitched.


JCT: The proofs of genocide are far more obvious for
prohibition of anti-epilepsy herb than for usury but they
are the same kind of stats and invoke the same kind of
national importance. The question of the prohibition of the
tree of life has been accepted as of national importance so
many times, because so many people are affected by it, that
when you think that the two biggest cases challenging that
murderous prohibition were set to go to the Supreme Court,
both were aborted by one Judge Binnie because one document
had been submitted late, to have one of the highest judges
have to besmirch his own career with such a move on a
question of genocide, tells of the national importance of
the challenges.

NE: also, he won't be able to consider Krieger, because it
is not in his province.

JCT: Krieger, my Exhibit 10, is out of the right country,
the Supreme Court of Canada. How can anyone say that the
Krieger decision was overturned when the SCC didn't do it? I
know, judges will say any old stupid thing to duck the issue
when it's big.

NE: So you will probably be forced to go the constitutional
route.

JCT: It's as if the growing heap of dead epileptic corpses
doesn't count for anything, doesn't it? But of course, my
constitutional challenge to the prohibition of my "epilepsy
prevention marijuana muffins" is the next step. But before I
go and follow in Terry Parker's victorious footsteps, I'm
going to see if we can't collect on his pot first before
trying win re-win it myself.

NE: Make sure you hand in your notice to the Attorney
General of your Province - it is a requirement. Evidence Act
says either by hand at their office or by registered mail
ONLY.

JCT: First I find out if there's going to be a trial before
my prohibition application gets dealt with. The judge wants
to get on with my trial on March 15 before my appeals over
his jurisdiction are heard.

NE: It is important that you also add s. 15 AND s. 32 to
your challenge, so you will have the same standing as
Krieger and Parker in that a statute was struck, and you
have equal standing before the law. (S. 15 gives you
Krieger/Parker standing - equality of persons; but s. 32
gives you the application of the law has to be equal in the
country). See R. v. Nicholls, where our provincial court
judge (now Chief Justice) threw out Nicholls motion (based
on s. 15). He gave hints that it was based on the wrong
section, that is why you need 32.

JCT: I'm not worried about my standing since I'm facing
penal sanctions and that gives me standing. And if I can't
convince them to end prohibition because it's killing
people, do you really expect them to stop it because it
violates some secondary right? Come on. Win on genocide and
it's over, world-wide. I can't take a Canada Section 15
right to the UN to end prohibition world wide but I can take
a Canada Section 7 right to no genocide to end prohibition
world wide to the UN. Winning on some secondary right
doesn't help much. I need the admission prohibition kills.

NE: Also, you might want to try s.6 mobility rights in that
as a citizen of Canada, Mr. Krieger and Parkers have had
mobility rights whereas if the ruling is "only in Ontario"
that it would be a violation of such.  I am going to be
subpoening my MP, his office says I can't, but I don't
believe that's true.

JCT: Again, winning on Canadian mobility rights doesn't give
me the card I'll soon be playing on the world political
stage.

NE:The judge has no requirement to take judicial notice of
HOW laws are made, only the actual statutes themselves. See
Canada Evidence Act. In any case, my friend picked up the
papers today, and Monday the govt goes down, so I don't know
that he would be an MP by then anyway. Do you know?

JCT: The error we are raising is that all the lower judges
who said they were following the Interpretation Act that
struck down penal statutes "were to be deemed repealed" were
all right to do so and that the three Ontario Court of
Appeal Hitzig-J.P. judges who told them to ignore the
Interpretation Act so that from now on struck down penal
statutes "were to be deemed absent" pending their repair by
the courts for later resurrection by the courts.

NE: By the way, have you or Max got a copy of the
transcripts of Max's court (Nov 16?)

JCT: Max has just sent them to me and I should get them by
next week.

NE: I will be requiring same prior to my constitutional
question court 19,20 Dec. (Also, I would appreciate original
copies of any Couper/Iavonelli affadavits that you have (by
fax preferably).

JCT: I accidentally faxed you the wrong document. Sorry.

NE: I only have telephone line, not individual fax line, so
I need prior notice before anything is faxed.  I also don't
mind paying some $$ to help with the cost of getting any
transcripts.)

JCT: So if my Application to quash is denied, and the
March 15 trial goes on, then I file my Notice of
Constitutional Question based on the violation of the
Charter's Section 7 right to life by the prohibition of the:
a) safest non-toxic herbal health supplement;
b) most useful plant for environmental sustainability.

NE: 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the
law and has the right to the equal protection and equal
benefit of the law without discrimination and, in
particular, without discrimination based on race, national
or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or
physical disability.
32. (1)This Charter applies
a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of
all matters within the authority of Parliament including all
matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest
Territories; and
b) to the legislature and government of each province in
respect of all matters within the authority of the
legislature of each province.

You also want to use the Malmo-Levine prohibition and
penalty or no law. This would apply to Charter 11.g) not to
be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at
the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence
under Canadian or international law or was criminal
according to the general principles of law recognized by the
community of nations; Hope it helps.  Noreen

JCT: I know you're trying them but you know how I stick to
the basics. I've explained why nothing but an admission that
prohibition has resulted in deaths of people who needed it
for medicinal use, genocide, can help me in my over-all
goals. You don't expect the UNILETS Engineer not to try to
become the UNIPOT Engineer too?

What's funny is that I've received no notice that my
appeal for prohibition linked to the Nielsens and Drouin and
Martin is being heard with them too. I guess it'll come in
another envelope.


--
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