JCT: J'ai invite tous ceux qui feront une presentation au
Social Forum Quebec sur l'economie ou sur la liberation des
pauvres d'assister a mon atelier sur les systemes anti-
pauvrete d'echange par credits sociaux SEL-JEU:

[I invited all those making presentations at the Quebec
Social Forum on the economy or the liberation of the paupers
to attend my workshop on LETS-UNILETS Employment-Trading
with social credits:

'Vendredi 24 / 11h
Axe 4: Monde du travail, luttes syndicales et economie
sociale et solidaire
Systeme d'Echange Local et JEU mondial, John Turmel

[Friday 24 / 11am
Axis 4: World of work, union battles and social and solidary
economics
Local Exchange Systems and Global LETS, John Turmel]

Les systemes d'echange local (SEL) et le Jardin d'Echange
Universel (JEU) sont des monnaies sociales basees sur le
temps a l'oeuvre des membres qui permettent le credit et de
l'emploi a tous et toutes. John Turmel, ingenieur qui a fait
la proposition C6 aux gouvernements dans la declaration
millennaire aux Nations Unies pour etablir un systeme
mondial UNILETS expliquera comment etablir ce mecanisme
financier global.

[(LETS) Local Employment-Trading Systems and the Universal
Exchange Garden (JEU) are social currencies based on time at
work of members which allows credit and employment to each
and everybody. John Turmel, engineer who presented
Resolution C6 to Governments in the United Nations
Millennium Declaration to establish a global UNILETS will
explain how to establish such a global financial mechanism.]

JCT: J'ai recu une seule reponse a interet:
[I got one interested reply:]

>Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:21:17 -0400
>From: info@... (Veronica Rioux)
>Subject: RE: TURMEL: #2 SEL-JEU (UNILETS) au Social Forum
>To: turmel@...

Bonjour M. Turmel, Nous avons recu votre message ci-bas
traitant de votre participation au FSQ avec l'atelier sur
UNILETS. J'imagine que vous nous avez envoye votre courriel
pour nous informer de votre presence, etant donne que nous
parlerons aussi, a ce Forum, d'un systeme d'echange local
(L'Accorderie, reseau d'echange de services base a Quebec).
[Hello Mr. Turmel. We have received your message with regard
to your participation at the FSQ with a workshop on UNILETS.
You must have sent your email to alert us to your presence,
given that we will also speak at this Forum of a System of
Exchange Locally (SEL in English is LETS), the Accorderie, a
sergive exchange netowrk based in Quebec.

Il serait tres enrichissant de vous rencontrer pour echanger
(sans jeu de mots)! Je serais personnellement tres
interessee d'en savoir plus sur le systeme d'echange global
dont vous parlerez. Cependant, ma collegue Stephanie Jones
et moi ne serons pas presentes le vendredi matin, donc au
moment ou vous ferez votre presentation. Resterez-vous par
ailleurs pour toute la duree du Forum? J'y serai normalement
pour vendredi PM, et ma collegue et moi y serons bien sur
pour la journee du samedi (notre atelier a lieu a 16h).
Merci pour les nouvelles et esperant avoir le plaisir de se
parler, salutations cordiales, Veronica Rioux L'Accorderie
Courriel : info@...
Site web : http://www.accorderie.ca/
Tel. 525-0258   -   Telecopieur 525-1177

[It would be very enriching to meet you to echange ideas
(without making a pun)! I personally would be very
interested in knowing more about the global trading system
you're speaking about. However, my colleague Stephanie Jones
and I won't be there on Friday morning. Will you be staying
for the whole Forum? I'd be able to get there by Friday pm
and my colleague and I will certainly be there on Saturday
(our workshop takes place at 4pm.)
Thank you for the news and hoping to have the pleasure of a
chat, cordial regards, Veronica Rioux, L'Accorderie
Email: info@...
Web Site: http://www.accorderie.ca/
Tel. 418-525-0258   -   Telecopieur 418-525-1177

JCT: Dommage. J'avais demande trois ateliers mais ils
m'ont limite a un et, en plus, le vendredi quand la plupart
ne pourront y etre. Peut-etre manquaient-ils d'espace? Je
serai a votre atelier pour voir si nous pourrons cooperer
et etablir un reseau d'echange provincial quebecois qui
serait compatible a un reseau d'echange provincial ontarien
que j'aimerais recommander pendant la prochaine election
generale en octobre, en commencant avec l'echange
d'hebergement entre l'Ontario et le Quebec.

[Too bad. I had signed up for 3 slots to speak on three days
but they cut it to one and on a day when most people won't
be there. Maybe they lacked space? I'm sure I'll attend your
workshop so we can see how we can cooperate to set up a
Quebec-wide trading network that can exchange with an
Ontario one I'd like to set up during the upcoming
provincial general election in October. Starting with the
exchange of accommodations between Ontario and Quebec.]

Pendant que je serai au Forum a Montreal, je m'inscrirai
pour briguer les suffrages a l'election partielle federale
dans la circonscription d'Outremont, le 17 Septembre, a
Montreal! J'espere pouvoir me servir d'un reseau
d'hebergement a Montreal, etabli avant l'election partielle.
Peut-etre de l'appui pour un SEL canadien pourrait meriter
l'attention des voteurs a temps.

While I'm at the Forum in Montreal, I'll also be registering
for my Guinness record-breaking byelection in the Montreal
riding of Outremont. I hope to use an accommodations network
in Montreal set up before the byelection. Maybe some support
for a Canada SEL can get those Montreal voters' attention on
time.

>correction Re: [ijccr] TURMEL: #2 SEL-JEU (UNILETS)
>Posted by: "ernie yacub" ernieyacub@... ernie_yacub
>Date: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:12 pm ((PDT))

> [(LETS) Local Employment-Trading Systems and the Universal
> Exchange Garden (JEU) are social currencies based on time
> at work of members which allows credit and employment to
> each and everybody.
>[Les systemes d'echange local (SEL) et le Jardin d'Echange
>Universel (JEU) sont des monnaies sociales basees sur le
>temps a l'oeuvre des membres qui permettent le credit et de
>l'emploi a tous et toutes.

EY: please be accurate with your representation of LETS...
[EY: Svp, soyez precis dans votre representation du SEL...

JCT: Who could be more accurate than the engineer who derivd
the LETS equation?
[JCT: Qui pourrait etre plus precis que l'ingenieur qui a
formule l'equation SEL?]

EY: it is redundant to call them "social" currencies since
all currencies are social
[EY: Il est redondant de les appeler des argents "sociaux"
puisque tous les argents sont sociaux.

JCT: Death-gamble mortgage loans which bear interest are not
social credits, they're anti-social credits because forcing
borrowers to pay back more than was created generates a
"musical chairs" elimination game that is not social.
[JCT: Des prets hypothecaires "mort-gage" a interet ne sont
pas des credits sociaux, ce sont des credits anti-sociaux
forcant les emprunteurs a repayer plus qu'il n'a ete cree
generant un jeu d'elimination a la mode "chaise musicales,"
ce qui n'est pas social.]

EY: it is incorrect to say they are based on "time at work"
- they may or may not be
[EY: Il est faut de dire que ces argents sont bases sur le
"temps a l'oeuvre." Peut-etre que oui, peut-etre que non.

JCT: I bet $20CA you can't name one LETS anywhere in the
world that does not link their currency to the hourly wage
paid to its members.
[JCT: Je gage $20CA que tu ne peux pas nommer un seul SEL
dans le monde qui n'a pas lie son credit a l'heure de
travail de ces members.]

EY: it is incorrect to say "allows" credit and employment -
nobody allows anything. ey http://lets.net
[EY: Il est faut de dire "permet" le credit et l'emploi -
personne ne peut rien permettre.

JCT: Paupers who do not belong to a social currency timebank
have no credit at the regular banks. Belonging to a timebank
"allows" them to use credit they can't get anywhere else.
This third point is such a silly nit-pick that it was
probably added so you could get three things wrong!
[JCT: Les pauvres qui ne sont pas membres d'une banque-a-
temps de credits sociaux n'ont pas de credit aux banques
regulieres. Etant membre d'une banque-a-temps leur permet
d'utiliser du credit qu'ils ne peuvent utiliser autrement.
Ce troisieme point est une si ridicule bagatelle que vous
l'avez probablement ajoutee dans le seule but d'etre en
erreur trois fois.]

My thesis on LETS social credits is at:
Mon these sur les credits sociaux SEL est a:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/bankmath.htm

Une plus courte version peut etre lu en Francais a:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/biglief.htm

LE GRAND MENSONGE DE LA SCIENCE ECONOMIQUE
Par John C. Turmel, B. Eng.
Toute la science economique est basee sur la fausse premisse
que "l'interet combat l'inflation" quand la verite est que
"l'interet cause l'inflation." Presque tous les jours dans
chaque rapport financier de tous les journaux et radio ou
television, c'est repete que l'interet combat l'inflation.
Ils sont tous d'accord que l'interet cause le chomage but
ont ete conditionnes a croire que c'est necessaire pour
combattre l'inflation. "L'inflation s'en vient donc il
faudra elever le taux d'interet" est scande hypnotiquement
comme un mantra.
Le mot "hypotheque" en anglais est "mort-gage" qui derive du
mot francais "mort" pour la "mort" et "gage" pour un "pari."
Les banquiers creent la masse monetaire en faisant des
prets. Les producteurs sont forces de parier en empruntant
le Principal nouvellement-cree pour payer les couts de
production et en elevant leurs prix pour recuperer le
Principal cree et l'Interet non-cree par leurs ventes.
Parceque les prix des produits (P+I) peuvent jamais etre
vendus lorsque les consommateurs n'ont recu que le Principal
(P), un minimum montant de produits doivent rester non-
vendus et un minimum nombre de producteurs doivent faire
faillite et souffrir la saisie. L'economist Keynes a compare
le "mort-gage" hypotheque au jeu des chaises musicales. De
la meme facon qu'il n'y pas suffisant de chaises pour que
tous peuvent survivre leur mort-gage de chaises musicales,
il n'y a pas suffisant d'argent pour que tous repayent (P+I)
et survivre leur mort-gage d'hypotheque.

P < principal, I < Interet, i < Taux d'interest, t < Temps
                                 Arith.      Algebre  Fonc.Exp.
Couts de production (Principal) 100         P        1
Prix de production (Dette)      100+I       P+I      exp(it)
Fraction achetable (Survivants) 100/(100+I) P/(P+I)  1/exp(it)
Fraction non-achetable (U=J)    I/(100+I)   I/(P+I)  1-1/exp(it)
Pour le chomage = 0, laissez:   I=0         I=0      i=0, t=0
La probabilite de survivre est fixe par le taux
d'interet(i). P/(P+I) survivent, I/(P+I) ne survivent pas.

L'equation pour l'inflation minimum (J) nous devons souffrir
est la meme equation pour le chomage (U) parceque la
fraction des gens qui souffrent la saisie est la meme
fraction de l'avoir confisque.

http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/shifts.jpg

Nous avons ete conditionne a croire que l'inflation est
cause par une augmentation d'argent chasant les biens (Shift
A) quand c'est reelement une reduction de l'avoir sur lequel
est base l'argent (Shift B) cause par les saisies. C'est
vrai que les deux changements nous semblent comme la meme
chose mais le graphique demontre que l'inflation n'est pas
la fonction inverse de l'interet, c'est la fonction directe
qui expose donc le Grand Mensonge que l'interet combat
l'inflation. On peut voir l'epreuve dans l'exemple de la
theorie du jeu a la fin des Mathematics de genie SEL a:
<http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/bankmath.htm>

Tous les economistes au monde ont ete enseignes que
l'inflation est Shift A. Il n'y a pas de curriculum
economique qui mentionne l'autre possibilite, Shift B. Ceci
n'est pas un accident. Mais lorsque les gens qui n'ont pas
ete conditionne par l'etude de la science economique sont
demande si les prix vont augmenter ou baisser lorsque
l'interet est augmente, ils sont vite d'accord que le
marchand doit nous passer les couts d'interet par
l'augmentation de ses prix. Mais en meme temps, tres peu
notent que cette conclusion logique est en directe
contravention au Grand Mensonge qui est repete et repete
dans tous les medias et textes de science economique.

I/(P+I) a ete appele l'Equation Miracle parcequ'elle expose
le grand mensonge de la science economique que l'inflation
est la fonction inverse de l'interet quand c'est reelement
la fonction directe. En laissant I=0, on elimine l'inflation
et le chomage involontaire! Si l'interet ne combat pas
l'inflation mais en realite cause l'inflation, c'est donc
pas logique de garder l'interet dans les logiciels des
ordinateurs du systeme bancaire. Ceci explique pourquoi le
logiciel du systeme bancaire sans-interet SEL ne souffre pas
l'inflation et ce modele parfait demontre donc la maniere
que le systeme bancaire international devrait un jour
marcher.

Notre mission est donc d'exposer le Grand Mensonge de la
science economique a nos amis et voisins. Chaque fois que
vous lisez le Grand Mensonge dans votre journal, exposez le.
Chaque fois que vous l'entendez au radio ou a la television,
exposez le. Il y a des chances pour exposer le Grand
Mensonge presque chaque jour. Nous devons travailler a
installer un systeme bancaire sans interet ou continuer a
souffrir les consequences de pauvrete que nous avons
souffertes pendant toute notre histoire humaine.
Send a comment to John Turmel bc726@...

[A shorter version may be read at (English):
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/biglie.htm ]


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

JCT: I had received information about a meeting on the North
American Union going on nearby:

>From: Claudia Hudson hudcom@...
>Sent: August 3, 2007 12:40 PM
>Subject: Aug 07 Think tank re SPP reminder

In August 20-21 Prime Minister Harper will ratify the
Security, Prosperity Partnership with Mexico and the US.
What will this do to your life? Viewpoints from politicians,
business people, environmental activists and others will be
heard at the August 07 meeting. Bring your voice to the
discussion. Your country is at stake.
Thanks to the Brantford Inventors Club, I am able to arrange
a 'Think Tank for True Canadians' to discuss the August 20-
22 Security, Prosperity Partnership (SPP) with US and
Mexico, in Montebello, Quebec Tuesday, August 07, 2007 7pm
J's Place Restaurant (upstairs) corner of Market and Erie
Ave. Brantford, Ont All welcome, Please pass this on
Cost: No charge --please patronize the restaurant
Claudia Hudson, Facilitator RSVP 519 754 0670
hudcom@...

JCT: Some of my opponents in the next federal election
attended too. Lloyd St. Amand, sitting member, showed but
didn't prepare a presentation but spoke for a few minutes,
the Green Party nominee showed and spoke for 5 minutes, a
CAP party representative spoke, and then Claudia Hudson
refused to let the independent candidate, me, make my
presentation telling me I could comment like the rest of the
crowd. Claudia's a CAP supporter.

So a candidate who came unprepared got to speak and another
who came prepared to speak was shut out. Being excluded from
election debates is nothing new to me so I listened to the
first presentation on "monetary reform" by Sydney White and
then left.

She did a commendable presentation on why we should push to
get the Bank of Canada to issue interest-free loans for
government financing but then blew her credibility by
denigrating people who start up their own social currency
lifeboats while awaiting the bigger solution:

From the Toronto Street News:
www.canadastreetnews.com/vol%209%202%20july%206-%2019/Page1July19.pdf
By Sydney White / Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform

JCT: I made the first presentation on vast interest-free
Bank of Canada financing to a COMER conference back in 1985
but it never stuck.

SW: We ignore the Ban of Canada At Our Peril
Early in June, I attended an informal gathering in Brantford
where several people spoke on the use of community dollars.

JCT: I was one of them.

SW:Of course these dollars have been used for some time in
places like Ithaca, New York, where small numbers have been
accepted along with (private) Federal Reserve Notes.

JCT: I guess she's never heard about it spreading to over 50
countries.

SW: However, should they ever become widely used, affecting
the privately issued money, laws will be passed to take them
out of circulation, if not their owner.

JCT: She's a prophet too. "Don't build yourselves a currency
life-boat because they'll just sink it."

SW: Two of the speakers came to my lecture in Toronto and
over coffee afterwards told me that ALL money was debt
money.

JCT: When anyone uses the words "debt money," I usually tune
out since they haven't keyed in on the fact it's not that
money is based on debt (functional LETS social currencies
are based on debt to return what was given) but that there
is usury on the debt, whether based on asset or debt.
Bemoaning "debt-money" is the tell exhibiting their
confusion.

SW: When I answered that our publicly-owned Bank of Canada
was still issuing two per cent interest-free money

JCT: All my political career, I have sought to have the
Bank of Canada fund 100% of Canada's economic action
interest-free. The 2% is simply the coins issued without
interest. In the early 1980s, I dragged the Bank of Canada to the
Supreme Court demanding their computers be restricted to a
pure service charge with the interest charge abolished on
Bank of Canada funding of all government expenses.

SW: and that it could issue as much as fifty percent,

JCT: I'm working on the vast 100% solution and she's working
on the half-vast 50% solution.

SW: they looked at me as if I were wearing a tin foil hat,
pronounced in unison that I knew nothing, scooped up their
handsomely designed, privately printed money, and left.

JCT: I'd look at someone suggesting a half-vast solution
a little funny too.

SW: I didn't take this personally, many well-meaning people
involved in community dollars, or printing their own money,
are unaware of monetary history.

JCT: I want Bank of Canada currency too but I'm also the
engineer of the world community currency movement.

SW: Aside from the fact that these local monies can never
take the place of a government-issued interest-free
currency,

JCT: When Argentinian social creditos did take the place of
government-issued currency after the Argentinian banking
system collapsed in 2001, it enabled them to pay off all
their IMF and World Bank foreign debt. Of course, Sydney
doesn't know because the media didn't report it and she
didn't dig it up like I did.

SW: our complex civilization also needs a currency that does
not stop at city or village borders.

JCT: I used my "IOU Time" currency all over Europe during my
last European tour. People in towns outside of Ithaca accept
Ithaca Hours because someone will someday spend them there.

SW: Benjamin Franklin, Andrew Jackson, Lincoln and Kennedy
issued interest-free money, and our own Bank of Canada
issued fifty percent interest-free money from 1938 onwards.

JCT: So they have already tried the half-vast solution
before.

SW: Unfortunately, the political will that once kept our
central bank under public control, has chosen impotence and
we are now at a token two per cent. But this can be remedied
by an informed public _ the owners of the Bank of Canada.

As if this episode with feudal money systems wasn't
discouraging, a visit to City Hall this week convinced me
that the lid on monetary history and all information
regarding the privatization of our money, is now tighter
than ever.

JCT: King Henry's "feudal" Tally system worked fine for 600
years. Feudal or not, social currencies work.

SW: Almost A Hundred Groups Protest Miller's Sneaky Summer
Taxes!!

The Council, led by Mayor Miller, was angrily confronted by
almost a hundred groups who were protesting four proposed
taxes on vehicles, liquor, entertainment, and a doubled land
transfer tax on home buyers, "Because the city was on the
verge of bankruptcy". These new taxes were, of course, to be
voted on during the summer when everyone was out of town.
The STATED grotesque fact that two-thirds of our taxes are
wasted on paying interest to private banks on infrastructure
loans which had been in the Bank of Canada at minimum or no
interest, did not cause a ripple of curiosity.

JCT: Paying interest is number one. It's verboten to think
about not paying interest. It's strikes at their cognitive
dissonance. It just doesn't stick.

As a deputante, I reminded Mayor Miller that I had written
him in July of 2004 setting out the blueprint for municipal
borrowing from the Bank of Canada, to which he had responded
that he would pass on this information to his Treasurer.
Since it was obviously not passed on, I would now give this
procedure step by step, to the Council. Mayor Miller was not
thrilled and watched the clock, looking forward to the last
second of my five minutes.

Again, most Councillors, though not looking for the tin foil
hat, were staring blankly at me, aware that they had missed
something, but not knowing what it was.

The perfect "revenue tool" of all those they had whined
about, had just been explained to them, and still they sat
becalmed without a breeze of thought to stir them. Ignorance
does not mean illiteracy; it is seeing something before your
eyes and deciding to ignore it.

JCT: It's not ignorance, not knowing, it's stupidity, not
wanting to know. And they're not deciding to ignore it. As
Jesus said, "they will forever be hearing without hearing
and seeing without seeing" when it comes to usury.

SW: Saying that we don't have enough money to take care of
our infrastructure is as foolish as saying we can't build
roads because we don't have enough kilometers.

JCT: Better is "can't ride the railroad because they ran out
of tickets.

SW: This ignorance has gone global. The earth and its
nations are being scourged, drained and ground through the
finest mills of usury while the bewildered population
protests "trade" agreements that are merely adjuncts to the
all-consuming compound interest levied on servile
governments. Until politicians have the testicular fortitude
to admit that there is a huge difference between "economy"
and "finance" and until they learn the difference between an
"expense" and an "investment", we are doomed to waste our
precious time in government halls where form does not follow
function, but merely obeys the private banking edicts.

As the great Roman Consul, Cicero said in 63 B.C.:
"Politicians are not born; they are excreted." There's one
exception: "Here's to you, Connie Fogal, of the Canadian
Action Party.

JCT: Another half-vast thinker. So anyway, I wrote to a
letter to the editor:

Toronto Street News
Victor Fletcher, Publisher
vpflet@...

Dear Sir:

Having been dubbed "bank fighter extraordinaire" by the
media for my court battles trying to force the Bank of
Canada to fund Canadian enterprise with interest-free
funds in the early 1980s, I agree wholeheartedly with your
front page article in Vol 9 #2 2007 by Sydney White urging
the City of Toronto to apply for interest-free Bank of
Canada funds.

I have also urged such use of the Bank of Canada for over a
quarter century and I also noted that as she did:
"most were staring blankly at me, aware that they had missed
something, but not knowing what it was. The perfect "revenue
tool" of all those they had whined about, had just been
explained to them, and still they sat becalmed without a
breeze of thought to stir them."

That's why I was so stunned by Ms. White's criticism of the
Social Currency movement arguing focusing on the Bank of
Canada would be best. Social currency has been called an
anti-poverty system, an economic life-boat. Sure, the Bank
of Canada could do it right but I financed the first LETS
(Greendollar) software in the early 1980s despite my wanting
to use the Bank of Canada as suggested because I felt it was
better to start doing it ourselves than wait for the
political-controlled bank to do it right.

So while fighting for the big Bank of Canada solution like
Ms. White, or the United Nations UNILETS solution, I also
advise people to set up their own anti-poverty life-boats at
the local level until it's done right at the top.

I can't understand why Ms. White would be so down on us
running our banking right ourselves locally while waiting
for her preferred solution at the top.

Yours truly,
John Turmel, Banking Systems Engineer


JCT: Speaking of cognitive dissonance, I had booked a half-
hour slot to do my Ballad of the Banking Systems Engineer at
the Brantford Inventors club but unfortunately, the
moderator was a rich dude and after five minutes, he could
not restrain himself, interrupted me asking I stop reading
my poem and just recap what I wanted to say. I said it was a
poem of my regular message but ended his misery anyway.

The truth about money is so very upsetting for people who
have money that they have to try to stop what I'm saying. I
have dozens of posts over the years from  people demanding I
be banned from posting because they didn't want to read it.
When I asked why they keep reading me, one slow thinker,
Christina from Sweden, responded it was because she didn't
want to miss any of the good stuff. Better I be banned so
nobody gets to read it and she won't feel left out of the
good stuff she would miss.

Anyway, it was amusing to see how the moderator
just couldn't control himself and had to put a stop to my
poem within 5 minutes. Like Jesus and Sydney said, "they
remain forever dense."


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

JCT: J'ai recu les infos sur mon atelier sur le SEL-JEU au
Social Forum Quebec le 23-27 Aout 2007.
[I received information on my workshop on LETS-UNILETS at
the Social Forum of Quebec from Aug 23-27 2007.

>Wed, 4 Jul 2007 23:17:17 +0200 (CEST)
>From:  "Ariane Denault-Lauzier" <arideno@...>
>Subject: concernant vos activites au FSQ
>To: johnturmel@...

Bonjour, "Systeme d'echange local-JEU mondial". Est-ce que
le titre vous convient?
[Hello, is "Local Exchange System - Global JEU" okay?]

Aussi, suivant notre Charte de principes, les partis
politiques ne peuvent pas presenter des activites. Je dois
donc enlever le nom de votre parti et mettre votre nom
personnel, a moins que vous ayez une autre organisation.
[Also, according to our Charter of Principles, political
parties may not make presentations. I must therefore remove
the name of your political party and put your personal name,
unless you have another organisation.]

Ariane Denault-Lauzier
Secretariat Forum social quebecois
Coordination Programmation/Programmation culturelle
Telephone: (514) 982-0533  Courriel: arideno@...
www.forumsocialquebec.org

JCT: J'ai repondu rapidement et donc, de:
[I responded so, from:
www.er.uqam.ca/nobel/social/2007/files/programmation/PROGRAMMATION_FSQ.pdf

'Vendredi 24 / 11h
Axe 4: Monde du travail, luttes syndicales et economie
sociale et solidaire
Systeme d'Echange Local et JEU mondial, John Turmel
[Friday 24 / 11am
Axis 4: World of work, union battles and social and solidary
economics
Local Exchange Systems and Global LETS, John Turmel]

Les systemes d'echange local (SEL) et le Jardin d'Echange
Universel (JEU) sont des monnaies sociales basees sur le
temps a l'oeuvre des membres qui permettent le credit et de
l'emploi a tous et toutes. John Turmel, ingenieur qui a fait
la proposition C6 aux gouvernements dans la declaration
millennaire aux Nations Unies pour etablir un systeme
mondial UNILETS expliquera comment etablir ce mecanisme
financier global.
[(LETS) Local Employment-Trading Systems and the Universal
Exchange Garden (JEU) are social currencies based on time
at work of members which allows credit and employment to
each and everybody. John Turmel, engineer who presented
Resolution C6 to Governments in the United Nations
Millennium Declaration to establish a global UNILETS will
explain how to establish such a global financial mechanism.]

JCT: Nice accurate blurb! Too bad about no parties,
just because the others do not dare! So, I'll be making my
presentation on our Quebec Social Forum endorsing the
UNILETS Resolution so that our members organisations allow
credit and employment to each other.

More:

TRANSLATION OF THE WEBSITE IN ENGLISH
Most sections of the website are now available in
english. You may also download the Presentation of
the project .

http://www.er.uqam.ca/nobel/social//2007/

Forum social quebecois 23 - 26 aout 2007 a Montreal
La programmation du FSQ enfin disponible!  16-07-2007

Vous pouvez dhs ` prisent consulter la liste des 315
drateliers qui composeront le FSQ. Vous trouverez
l'ensemble des ateliers (titre, risumi, organisateurs et
intervenants) ripartis par journie, plage horaire et axe
himatique.
Le programme final et complet du FSQ, comprenant aussi
la programmation culturelle, les
activitis qui se tiendront dans l'espace des pratiques
alternatives (Parc Imilie Gamelin), les cartes du site,
et surtout les numiros des salles oy se tiendront les
activitis, est en cours de finalisation. Il vous sera
remis en copie papier avec votre sac et votre cocarde
d'inscription dhs le 23 ao{t, ` partir de 12h, dans la
Cour Sanguinet du Pavillon De-Shves ` l'UQAM (320, rue
St-Catherine Est).
Vous trouverez aussi ci-dessous le descriptif ditailli
des 4 grandes confirences qui se
tiendront les soiries des 24 et 25 ao{t.
@ trhs bienttt,
Le secritariat du FSQ
Programmation du FSQ (Word)
Programmation du FSQ (PDF)
Grandes confirences (Word)
Grandes confirences (PDF)

Accueil
06-07-2007
Participez au Premier Forum social quibicois,
qui aura lieu du 23 au 26 ao{t 2007
` Montrial (UQAM/Parc Imilie-Gamelin)!

VOUS POUVEZ MAINTENANT VOUS INSCRIRE COMME
PARTICIPANT AU FSQ!
Consultez la section inscription pour tous les ditails.

UN AVANT GO[T DE LA PROGRAMMATION
Il est maintenant possible de consulter la
progression des activitis qui auront lieu durant
l'ivhnement en cliquant ici: activitis inscrites.
Vous pouvez igalement consulter les activitis
culturelles proposies.
INSCRIPTION D'UNE ACTIVITI CULTURELLE

AGORA WEB: TRANSPORT SOLIDAIRE, COVOITURAGE ET
COLLECTIFS RIGIONAUX
Si vous jtes intiressi ` participer `
l'hibergement solidaire ou au covoiturage, vous
pouvez passer votre annonce sur lagora Web. Cet
agora est igalement un lieu priviligii pour
l'organisation des collectifs rigionaux.

INSCRIVEZ-VOUS @ NOS LISTE DE DIFFUSION !
Pour recevoir de l'information sur le Forum social
quibicois, vous pouvez vous inscrire ` nos listes
de diffusion. Il existe une liste ginirale pour
tous, une spicialement didiie aux midias.

JCT: Esperons que les nations francaises pourront guider le
monde a un JEU economique equitable avec des credits
sociaux.


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

JCT: Last October and December of 2006, I decried the "Liberty
Dollar" gang of Agent Provocateurs whose Argent Provocateur
(Argent is money, silver, in French, great pun) was being
associated with the Social Currency movement:

Liberty Dollar Straw Man Judas Goat
http://yahoogroups.com/group/turmel/message/3207
Judas Goat Liberty Dollars linked to CC by DeMeulenaere
http://yahoogroups.com/group/turmel/message/3267

Since there are multitudes of legitimate and legal community
currencies in the U.S., Ithaca Hours for example, why would
these guys incur the wrath of the government by using
credits that resemble real dollars and call them dollars
when, like "Hours" or "Timedollars" or "Greendollars," they
don't have to?

I opined it was to sabotage the alternative currency
movement by getting people to use their illegal currency so
they can be attacked. Now we see the Liberty Dollar Argent
Provocateur being used to sabotage the Ron Paul campaign.

>Subject: [catapult] Digest Number 6856
>Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 17:26:28 -0400 (EDT)
>From: griffin@... ("G. Edward Griffin")
>Subject: Unfiltered News from Te Reality Zone Aug 10 2007
>To: turmel@...

Ron Paul Dollars are here - in copper, silver, and gold.
Great campaign conversation pieces with inevitable
collector's value. Liberty Dollar 2007 Aug 7

JCT: Dr. Griffin should know better. His "Capitalist
Conspiracy" is one of the best videos on the bankster cartel
ever done except he then says the solution is to base our
credits on yellow rock instead of human work a la Timebank.

http://m1e.net/c?11834573-SAtat32Hl1ooE%402672462-Y88UFN5V3Qtts
or
http://www.libertydollar.org/ld/ronpauldollar

Liberty Dollar
Presidential candidate Paul passionate over hard money
July 23, 2007 - Coin World
One of the 10 declared Republican candidates for the 2008
presidential race brings to the campaign a background that
includes being a coin dealer and a longtime advocate for
hard money: Ron Paul.
Although television debates give voters a chance to learn
about the candidates, the format does not allow a full
opportunity to discuss issues that each presidential hopeful
may choose. While he has been able to make some passing
references to fiscal policy and sound money, those topics
are Paul's passions.
Read More...

JCT: Sure, Dr. Paul (a real M.D., not some Artsy Ph.D.)
doesn't like the Fed and is making spectacular inroads in
the American consciousness. He's one of the few U.S.
politicians I have ever respected, though he's still not
quite an Abolitionist of Debt Slavery by Usury, but he's
certainly the intellectual cream of the Republican crop.

So next, these agents provocateurs will try to provoke
government wrath against Ron Paul by getting people to
donate the illegal argent provocateur to his campaign and if
he uses it to pay people, he can be busted for illegal
funding methods.

Of course, I advocate donating with legal alternative
credits. Donate all the Ithaca Hours to his campaign all you
want because it is not argent provocateur! Doesn't look like
US money, doesn't malfunction like US money.

No time to comment but here's the rest of their pitch to set
up an illegal and bustable Ron Paul currency:

July 19, 2007 - economist.com
RON PAUL, a libertarian Republican congressman from Texas,
likes to say what he thinks. And among the things he thinks
is that the census is a violation of privacy. He has opted
out of the congressional pension programme. He claims never
to have voted for a tax increase, or for an unbalanced
budget, or for a congressional pay rise and never to have
gone on a congressional junket. He wants to return to the
gold standard. Most notably, he strongly opposes the Iraq
war and has from the beginning. Read More...

JCT: He sees what's wrong with the FED but not what's right
about time-based currency.

Ron Paul Gains New Currency
July 16, 2007 - nytimes.com
He's still a long shot for the presidency, but Republican
Rep. Ron Paul of Texas has leapfrogged into a distinction
usually reserved for chief executives - and dead ones, at
that: His visage now graces a coin. Read More...

JCT: The Argent Provocateur is getting space in the New York
Times. These agents provocateurs must be really connected.

Ron Paul Odds Slashed Dramatically: 15 to 1 from 200 to 1
May 30, 2007
It was only two weeks ago that 2008 Presidential candidate
Ron Paul was listed at Sportsbook.com with odds of 200 to 1.
In fact, early in the month he was not even offered on the
political betting menu. My how things have changed in the
past month. Read More...

JCT: That's real info, the betting line for people who put
their money where their mouths are.

Abolish the Fed
September 10, 2002
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to restore
financial stability to America's economy by abolishing the
Federal Reserve. I also ask unanimous consent to insert the
attached article by Lew Rockwell, president of the Ludwig
Von Mises Institute, which explains the benefits of
abolishing the Fed and restoring the gold standard, into the
record. Read More...

JCT: Too bad. Gold standard never worked before, can't work
now. He's as good man but a social currency dinosaur if
he thinks credits on yellow rock are as good as credits on
plastic or copper when at the beach. Of course, I'd be he
might catch on to the Time Standard of Money instead of the
Gold Standard of Money. Then he's be a man with a solution
in his hand.

The surprising relevance of Ron Paul.
May 21, 2007
The New Republic
A star had just been born when, a day after the May 15
Republican presidential debate in South Carolina, I met
Texas Representative Ron Paul for lunch on Capitol Hill. The
meeting had been scheduled for several days; but, as luck
would have it, the previous night Paul had gone from an
oddball obscurity to a major sensation in the political
world when, answering a question about September 11, he
seemed to suggest that the attacks were justified by an
aggressive U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. "They
attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing
Iraq for ten years," Paul explained. The ever-macho Rudy
Giuliani was quick to pounce. "That's an extraordinary
statement," he marveled. "And I would ask the congressman to
withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean
that." The crowd roared its approval. A previously flagging
Giuliani suddenly enjoyed his best moment of the race. Read
More...

JCT: I want nothing to do with America until its war
criminal have been brought to justice.

Commemorating Independence Day!
In celebration of The 4th of July, 2007 you are invited -
even urged - to flex your independence with the Volunteer
Network's 'secret weapon' - the Ron Paul Dollar

JCT: The Ron Paul booby-trap.

bringing new meaning to the U.S. Mint's "Presidential
Dollars" and symbolizing the Congressman's values. WOW! Now
the Internet's favorite Presidential candidate has his own
money to help turbo-charge his shot at the White House.

JCT: Yes, his own argent provocateur.

Impossible, you think? Long shot? Dark horse? Think again.
This election is different. Want to stand this Presidential
election on its head? Well guess what? As utterly amazing as
it may seem, we the people, could actually get Ron Paul
nominated. Why? Because there are so many Republican liars
running for President and the field is so fractionized, that
a classic dark house candidate could win. And that is
amazing! Yes, we all know that politicians are pathological
liars. And this campaign has an unusually large number of
liars. Fortunately, Congressman Ron Paul speaks the truth.
He speaks the truth about the government, about money and
about the war. Ron Paul is dedicated to the truth and a
government as defined by the US Constitution. But Truth
without action... dies. The great American experiment is
already dying. You can see signs of it everywhere. The
federal empire is destroying America. And as it grows, we
the people lose our purchasing power, our liberties and even
our hope for a prosperous future. Please don't let the Truth
die. Nothing happens without you taking action. The Liberty
Dollar cannot cure our country's monetary ills without YOU.
Congressman Ron Paul cannot be elected without YOU. You are
the most important person in this election.

JCT: A lot of hype to cover the sabotage. Would guys who
love Ron Paul this much try to get him in trouble?

So the Volunteer Network created a 'secret weapon' - the Ron
Paul Dollar. Available in pure $1 Copper, $20 Silver, and
$1000 Gold Ron Paul Dollars. It was specifically designed to
popularize Ron Paul's campaign, put more real money in the
people's hands, attract more media attention and political
memorabilia collectors.

JCT: Ron Paul's own "real money." It certainly should get
him more media attention with the New York Times leading the
way.

"The Ron Paul Dollar is certainly different," said Jeff
Kotchounian, a collector in Michigan. "For me, it's a great
way to popularize Ron Paul and get him elected!"

JCT: Or get him jailed.

Von NotHaus, the fiery "freemarketeer" behind the Ron Paul
Dollar, observes, "It will be interesting to see if enough
people are fed up with politics, Bush regime, and the war to
take Congressman Paul seriously. Certainly the Ron Paul
Dollar is as unique as the Candidate and the election
itself. Do the majority of Americans really want to change
Washington? Time will tell."
Von NotHaus stresses urgency as the political parties have
moved up the primary elections, squeezing campaigning time
to only eight more months. If people want to change things,
they must make a donation to Ron's campaign, get a Ron Paul
Dollar and support him right now.

JCT: Step one. What's Ron supposed to do with all his "real
Ron Paul money?" Step two into a jail cell?

All this will be a big surprise to Dr. Paul. As Liberty
Dollar's legal counsel pointed out, if Ron Paul's campaign
was informed before the launch date, the Federal Election
Commission could require profits in excess of $2,300 (the
maximum individual donation allowed) to be distributed to
the Republican Party! So the Ron Paul Dollar was created as
an "independent contribution" and is distributed through the
grassroots Volunteer Network.

JCT: The only candidate who can be busted.

As von NotHaus explains, "Even though I know and respect Ron
Paul for his free market philosophy, I did not take his
campaign seriously until our mutual friend G. Edward Griffin
mentioned his support. It got me thinking about how I could
support Ron's campaign, then Nic Leobold suggested a Ron
Paul Dollar and the project took off."

JCT: Poor Dr. Griffin, being credited with the iceberg they
plan to use to sink his campaign.

IMPORTANT: If you don't do anything else, please link your
site to www.RonPaulDollar.com site to enhance the site's
rating with Google. Thanks!
The Ron Paul Dollar is not only the most valuable and daring
secret weapon against the big lies of big money and their
big party politics. It is an honest campaign tool that can
put an honest man in the White House.... for a change.
It is time to return our country to the values that made it
great. It is time for Constitutionalism!
Please take action. Join the revolution. Tell your friends
about the Truth. Tell them about the Ron Paul Dollar... And
Vote for Truth... Vote for Ron Paul.
On this very special national holiday - declare your
Independence from the politically controlled government!
Call somebody, anybody, about Ron Paul.
Make a donation.

JCT: Help sink his campaign with a booby-trapped donation.

Get a Ron Paul Dollar. Demand your local
newspaper/television cover the Ron Paul Revolution. We can
free America, again. Happy Independence Day 2007!
Click HERE for Rate Schedule for gold, silver and copper Ron
Paul Dollars.
Please call: 888.LIB.DOLLAR or 888.421.6181 for more info or
to order Ron
Paul Dollars by phone using your bankcard.

GOLD
Of course the $1000 Gold Ron Paul Dollar speaks for itself.
It also speaks for Congressman Ron Paul long held belief and
deep respect for the Gold Standard. His monetary ideals are
shared with everyone in the Liberty Dollar community. For
over thirty years Ron Paul has been a champion for the very
values - both monetary and personal - that made America a
great country. Nothing could better identify Ron Paul than
the beautiful Gold Dollar.

JCT: You only have to read David Astle's Babylonian Woe to
know the history of the Gold Standard. See my book
reports section at my home page.

The $1000 Gold Ron Paul Dollar measures 32 mm and contains
one Troy ounce of .9999 fine gold. The obverse die features
the same design and ultra high engraving quality as on the
$20 Silver Dollar.

JCT: Just like real argent but really argent Provocateur.

The reverse features the standard $1000 reverse die that is
on the current Gold Liberty. The dies and minting are of the
finest mintwork. Not many Gold Dollars are anticipated
although the volume price is very similar to the US Mint
Gold Buffalos and Eagles. To capitalize on the uniqueness of
the Gold Ron Paul Dollar, each Gold Dollar will be
individually numbered, hallmarked and encapsulated in the
order placed. Please order now while gold is down and get
one of the first numbers.
Please call 888.LIB.DOLLAR or 888.421.6181 for a current
quote as all Gold Ron Paul Dollars are available from 10 to
only 5% over Sunshine gold quote for Liberty Associates and
registered Liberty Merchants. This item is not available on
line. Delivery could be immediate or take up to 30 days
depending on available stock and size of order.

SILVER
The $20 Silver Ron Paul Dollar measures 39 mm and contains
one Troy ounce of .999 fine silver. The design of obverse
die is the same as the Copper Dollar but was engraved from
custom hand sculptured masters and exemplifies the finest
work. The reverse is also a special custom die with VOTE FOR
TRUTH across the top. Together the two highly polished dies
plus the minting in Brilliant Uncirculated condition has
produced an outstanding product of unique value. The
denomination on the reverse is $20 Liberty Dollars.

FIRST DAY OF ISSUE: In addition to the outstanding Brilliant
Uncirculated $20 Silver Ron Paul Dollar - 1,000 Silver
Dollars have been reserved for First Day of Issue. Only one
thousand will be specially hand marked with a unique micro
hallmark of a scroll with BOR to signify Ron Paul's respect
for the Bill of Rights. In addition to the BOR hallmark,
each First Day of Issue will also be hand marked with the
mintmark to balance the design. Only 1,000 FDI are
available. Each will be specially packaged in a capsule.
Price: $45 each.

LIMITED NUMBERED EDITION: Certainly the most outstanding
example of the $20 Silver Ron Paul Dollar is the Limited
Numbered Edition for the First Day of Issue. Only 1,000
Silvers will be numbered 0001 through 1000 in the order
issued. Each will contain the unique micro hallmark of a
scroll with BOR signifying Ron Paul's respect for the Bill
of Rights. Each will be packaged in a special capsule and
gift bag for safe-keeping. Price: $55 each.

COPPER
The $1 Copper Ron Paul Dollar measures 39 mm and contains
one Avoirdupois ounce of pure copper. It is the same size as
the Silver Liberty and slightly larger than an old US Silver
Dollar. The obverse die features Congressman Ron Paul facing
left with the motto: GOLD STANDARD IN LEADERSHIP and list of
the Congressman's achievements. The reverse die is the same
design as on the original Copper Liberty Dollar with the ONE
DOLLAR denomination. Now, while the price of copper down,
special pre-orders for the $1 Copper Ron Paul Dollar are now
being accepted. This is for pre-orders only. Additional
orders will not be taken if the copper market roars back to
life. Pre-orders will be shipped in November. Minimum order
is ten Coppers. Maximum order is 100 Coppers.
Copyright 1998-2007 Liberty Dollar | All Rights Reserved. |
Disclaimer | 888.421.6181 | 225 N Stockwell Rd | Evansville,
IN | 47715 | info@...

JCT: So again, why use a currency that incurs action by the
federal government when you can avoid it by having a clear
distinction between your currency and the Crown's? Why
create currency in a way ensured to incur charges?

Let's see if Ron Paul falls for it. Hope not but what can he
do when this argent provocateur lands in his donations box?


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

>Re: TURMEL: #3 Daniel Reeves says interest is simple but
can't bet
>by: "new_economics" new_economics@...
>Date: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:22 pm ((PDT))

"JCT: We can use the voting mechanism to let all
ijccr subscribers do an open vote."
---

NE: Despite supposedly hundreds of subscribers, there are
probably no more than five or six who actually read the
posts

JCT: Speak for yourself. Not everyone's posts are
uninteresting, uninformative and wrong.

NE: --because they themselves posted them.

JCT: They may not read you but I'd bet they read me. My
posts often generate a lot of discussion.

NE: I am excluding of course the posters of the penis
enlargement and pornography pushing ads to this apparently
unmoderated list.

JCT: The moderator can ban members who post scam.

NE: They won't bother to "vote" inasmuch as they are
automated spamming computers.

JCT: Then there must be nothing we can do.

NE: The five or six who will vote are as nutty a bunch as
you will ever find. Truly an "unbiased vote" if there ever
was one. This is tee-hee-hee stuff, John.

JCT: We're getting your message loud and clear. You're
scared to put it to the test, especially when voters will be
identified but their votes.

NE: As to logically countering Daniel's argument, there
isn't one.

JCT: Put your money where your mouth is too, go ahead and
provide a payment schedule for a debt with interest to be
paid off without recourse to outside money unless you want
to put your money on my problem:

> JCT: If you're alone on your island, your mortgage
> has no possible pay-off schedule.
> You said a $1000 loan amortized at 10% could be paid off
> if we're the only two on the island. I bet US$100 you
> can't provide a simple quarterly payment schedule without
> recourse to outside money.

JCT: And Reeves' solution to it.

Day 1: Lender gives me 10 tokens. Hurray tokens!
Day 2: I pay back the first 5 tokens.
Day 3: I do the lender's dishes, for which she pays me one
token.
Day 4: I pay back another 5 tokens.
Day 5: Lo! I still have a token! I pay it to the lender.
10 loaned, 11 repaid.

NE: Banks not only collect interest from loans, they pay
interest on deposits. In addition, they pay salaries, wages
and dividends back into the community, as well as ordinary
business expenses. It is an essential public function.
Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that. End of
discussion. Myro

JCT: I've drawn those flows at my bankmath page. Yes, they
spend the interest they take in. Fortunately, that's not the
bet. My bet is that the there is no possible payment
schedule for a debt with interest to be paid off without
recourse to outside money. So if you want to add another
Paypal US hundred to Reeves' bet, I'll fade you.
---

>Re: TURMEL: #3 Daniel Reeves says interest is simple but
>Posted by: "Daniel Reeves" dreeves@... pegarmpaul
>Date: Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:01 pm ((PDT))

DR: Sounds fair. Let's jointly compose the question to vote
on:
Is it possible to borrow 10 tokens and repay 11 in a two-
person economy with no outside money?

JCT: No, let's not compose a new question. Let's deal with
your original solution to my problem.

Day 1: Lender gives me 10 tokens. Hurray tokens!
Day 2: I pay back the first 5 tokens.
Day 3: I do the lender's dishes, for which she pays me one
token.
Day 4: I pay back another 5 tokens.
Day 5: Lo! I still have a token! I pay it to the lender.
10 loaned, 11 repaid.

JCT: If you want to beg off this first claim for this new
one:

DR: Choices:
YES, for example on day 1 you could borrow the 10 tokens, on
day 2 you could pay back 5, on day 3 you could do some work
for the lender for which she pays you 1, and on day 4 you
could pay back 6 for a total of 11 repaid.
NO, because, well, I can't actually fathom what the no
argument will be; I'll let you fill in this part :)

JCT: Not really, I'll question your solution to the problem
and see if you can defend it. I'm supposed to prove your
solution is wrong, not you have me prove it's right. I've
claimed it's right and explained why in numerous posts over
numerous years. I've watched Bill Ryan/Silas Kline/Peter
Hogwood fail to try like you've tried. And I'm ready to
challenge your solution.

DR: PPS, I'm not a fan of central banks and love the idea of
doing away with government-issued fiat currency altogether.

JCT: There is no such thing as government-issued fiat
currency. Debtor governments borrow from banks. The only
government issued non-fiat currency is coins backed up by
credits in banks' computers that can pay taxes.

DR: But why object to me paying someone a little extra for
letting me delay making good on my obligations?

JCT: I don't object to your being suicidal. I've never
objected to anyone who wishes to pay interest for the time
the money is borrowed as opposed to the service charge for
the banker's time issuing it. It's just that I don't want to
promise to pay 11 when I only got 10. You can try with your
solution to pay the interest all you want. I just don't want
to pay interest, I want to pay it as a service charge. Most
losers don't see the difference between interest and service
charge on the participants as I've explained in my bankmath
page, but as long as some others do see the difference, I
won't worry about those who cannot see.

DR: I think interest is a mathematically elegant way to do
that.

JCT: Go ahead and bet on your solution and I'll bet you
can't answer my critique.

DR: Mutual credit systems should not impose any particular
interest rate (including 0%) on people. Ripplepay, for
example, is perfectly agnostic about interest.

JCT: I don't want to impose a pure service charge on you if
you prefer paying interest. There is no coercion, just the
inclusion of an extra choice of an interest-free bank
account side by side with my interest-bearing Visa account.
I want the choice, you're satisfied with what you've got.
---

>Re: TURMEL: #3 Daniel Reeves says interest is simple but ca
>Posted by: "Graeme Taylor" telergy@...
>Date: Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:19 pm ((PDT))

GT: ...Any competition by mutual credit mechanisms to
increase punter's liquidity without increased debt servicing
must be a good thing, unless you are one of the elite that
benefit from fractional reserve lending.

JCT: They're not benefiting from fractional reserve lending,
they're benefiting from interest on lending.

GT: I agree with Daniel, except I do not see positive
interest on loans as "value neutral". Indeed, it exacerbates
economic stratification. cheers

JCT: So you accept Daniels' way to pay 11 when he only got
10?

GT: Graeme Taylor (not a user of penpal)

JCT: Get an account and I'll fade you up to $100 too.
---

>Re:TURMEL: #3 Daniel Reeves says interest is simple but ca
>Posted by: "Lee Redinger" lee@... leerr66
>Date: Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:11 pm ((PDT))

Daniel Reeves wrote:
>Sounds fair. Let's jointly compose the question to vote on:
>Is it possible to borrow 10 tokens and repay 11 in a
>two-person economy with no outside money? Choices:
> >> SNIP <<<

LR: DR and JCT,
I see no point in this vote. Instead, define the banking
rules your are going to use. Then anyone can figure it out.

JCT: No, we're not going to define the banking rules "we are
going to use." We're going to use the banking rules as they
exist. That there have been so many lies about the system's
engineering so as to keep most people fooled about how it
works isn't what we're doing here. I've presented the
problem relating to how the system works, Daniel has
presented a solution relating to how he thinks the system
works. I must rebut and get him to admit he can't do it.

LR: John is right if the bank can only lend money to others
and cannot collect interest before the loan principal is
paid back. Daniel is right if the bank can either borrow on
it's own account or collect interest before the principal is
returned.

JCT: So whoever is wrong will lose.

LR: JCT mentioned "An interest-free UNILETS world-wide
timebank. Almost here." What is it you are hinting at, John?
You got something to show us? Almost? Hurry!

JCT: I'm already using it. I've already created my personal
UNILETS account online for everyone's inspection. It's
rudimentary but functional. What I want and what I offer,
what I've spent, what I've earned. I paid for most of my
1999 European Tour with online Hours from my online timebank
account. Of course, since I run my UNILETS bank account
myself instead of having some network run it for me, many
people don't think that counts. Just because it works is no
reason to say it works! As soon as Hugo Chavez's Poor People
social currency is usable between Venezuela, Brazil and
Mexico is as soon as I can say the first international links
have been made between nations. Still, the fact my UNILETS
account works everywhere is another indication of links
between nationals personally. Check out:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/unilets.htm

LR: If you want to see another great example take a good
look at CES. http://community-exchange.org/

JCT: Another indication that social currency accounts,
whether operated personally or by a group or nation, is
looming on the financial horizon.

LR: Tim has a great thing going there, and needs more users.
It's easy and requires no "cash" or other "official
currency".

JCT: Sounds great.

He has been purposefully designing and using it unattached
to any bank money. It is standing upright on it's own hind
legs!

JCT: They way it should. Paid for with its own credits.

LR: It is usury-free and does not have features to support
usury. Millions of units of value have already been traded
on his system, and it is growing in user count and
transaction volume. Transparency is built in. Now he's
rewriting it to run on pure open source computing platforms.
Good trading but forget the voting!-Lee Redinger

JCT: Wonderful. Glad to know.
---

>Re: TURMEL: #3 Daniel Reeves says interest is simple but
>Posted by: "marc_gauvin" gauvin@... marc_gauvin
>Date: Thu Jul 12, 2007 3:49 am ((PDT))

Dear All, I could not resist replying to this:
1) I propose the following banking rules which are relevant
to what is occurring today and is what is precisely
reflected in my spread sheet

JCT: And here's Marc detailing for Daniel why he can't win
his bet with me. So I'll skip this and perhaps repeat it
when the money is in action.

>Re: TURMEL: #3 Daniel Reeves says interest is simple but ca
>Posted by: "marc_gauvin" gauvin@... marc_gauvin
>Date: Thu Jul 12, 2007 3:49 am ((PDT))

MG: Hi Lee, The CES is good of course, however nothing new
there.
1) Still need to answer the problem of balancing the usury
based sucking up of collateral value enforced by physical
force and legislation. When this is the case at an
exponential rate, systems like LETS and CES which are
frankly trivial, remain marginal and when and if they grow
they are stamped out.

JCT: That's not what happened when the banking system
crashed in Argentina. Use of social credits expanded to
millions of users and the deluge of sound credits that
couldn't be banked for interest encouraged the payment of
most overlapping internal debts to that federal dollars
would be focused on paying off the IMF and World Bank debts
last year. So the life-boats remain marginal until the Ship
of State crashes then everyone makes use of the available
lifeboats. Sure, it takes economic storms to push people
into their LETS lifeboats but to say that because the
lifeboats are so far small is no indication as to how long
it would take for social currencies to be used more in US,
Canada, France, Europe when their financial upheavals
arrive. With the jacking up of interest rates, it's on the
way now.

MG: 2) The key is not one currency or another. The key is
the technical specification of currency. There is no formal
rigorous standard technical definition for currency
published anywhere. What makes both the meter and the yard
viable is that they share a common generic spec so that
conversion between the two is trivial. Similarly, when the
world or we for that matter define a standard that is
published, then it matters not if it is this or that
currency, it will only matter what the underlying spec is.

JCT: That's why time is best, it's simple and everyone
understand that someone owes them an hour of work for their
hour of work.

MG: For example, green, blue and yellow currencies all
adhere to currency standard XYZ published by ABC and
available at 123. Time is running out friends, none of us
want to suffer that moment when resolution is made
impossible due to physical force while we remember how our
efforts ultimately were spent in vain. Best, Marc

JCT: Which is why setting up your lifeboat before the stormy
weather is still the right thing to do no matter how
marginal the lifeboat now while things are not yet too
turbulent.
---

>Re: TURMEL: #3 Daniel Reeves says interest is simple but
>Posted by: "Lee Redinger" lee@... leerr66
>Date: Thu Jul 12, 2007 3:10 am ((PDT))

LR: Hi Marc, I think you know I do not oppose your efforts
to teach. By the way, your letter to ALL only came to me.
You missed the group I think.
The county guys went through my area today, doing what they
do every year - spraying weeds. Have you ever tried to
eradicate Canadian Thistle?  It's a losing battle! You see,
Canadian Thistle just does it's thing. It spreads
underground, then pops up and sends thousands of seeds
flying everywhere the wind blows, just like alternative
currencies. Stomp 'em out one place they blow or grow in
from another next day or next year.
There are what, 6 billion people on this earth. I doubt I
can get all of them to use anything I design or manufacture.
I doubt you can either. Even if you get a spec published
most folks won't even know about it, let alone care. Most
will probably oppose it if they do find out.
Most people are busy trying to get ahead, pay the mortgage,
beat the Joneses, etc. They simply won't take time to learn
the truth. Even if it's stuck in front of their noses! I'm
trying all the time, and I bet you are, too. It doesn't work
very well. But what does work? Helping them get ahead! That
is what the LETS and CES and even the commercial "barter"
systems are doing!

JCT: That's right. Every transaction you do with your own
barter currency is one transaction less using money you're
paying interest to use.

LR: Each of these systems is marginal and it is doubtful
many will grow so big they will be stamped out. But there
are thousands of them, maybe millions, and more are coming.
The internet is a really great growing medium for them.
Tim's CES is approaching a point where it will "go to seed"
and be running on anybody's cheap web host service! Cyclos
is doing the same thing! WebLETS could too, and might. These
and other systems are already cushioning the impact of the
Fed and it's international siblings impact on the world
economy, at least for those folks who are using them. As
millions of additional people find out how they can
personally benefit by avoiding bank money the banks lose
more control.
CES, LETS, ITEX, Intagio, Airline miles, McDonald's certs,
IRTA, NATE, NTB, DoB, TTB, BFL, BM, IBC, WIR, American
Liberty Dollar, Phoenix, and a thousand more are the weeds
in the garden of the central bank and it's strongman taxman
weedstomper.

JCT: Canadian Tire money is Canada's best example of a
corporate social currency.

LR: They can't keep up! The weeds are sucking more and more
of the moisture and nutrients away from the interest garden!
Take heart, man! Don't fight with your fellow "weeds".
Join and support them. Get on some bandwagons and they will
bring you an audience like you only dream of right now!
Accept and pay with alternative forms whenever and wherever
you can find or make an opportunity. Use your cash to pay
off any debt and stop interest from hurting you directly.
You will be able to help others better then, too. Use Mutual
Credit systems whenever possible. They will prove to be
better than gold, and better than any centrally issued money
form. (Gold and other metals could prove to be a great
investment right now though, the way the USD is going. Don't
sit around with USD's in your pocket or bank account.) Have
fun!  Lee Redinger

JCT: After 25 years, Marc's got a right to be tired but it's
nice to see the enthusiasm of the newest generation of money
reformers.
---

>Re: TURMEL: #3 Daniel Reeves says interest is simple but ca
>Posted by: "marc_gauvin" gauvin@... marc_gauvin
>Date: Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:06 am ((PDT))

MG: Hi Lee, Thanks for posting your reply.
Not against any alternative currency that people are using.
People have been doing that for centuries with or without
trendy alternative money schemes.
Every time you strike a deal for exchange of manpower in a
common endeavour you are using manhours as a unit whether
you account for it formally or not.
My point is that the definitive solution is not in promoting
alternative units, that is helpful in that it people become
familiar with the fact that there are other possible specs
out there. But the viciousness of the current system is such
that it is imposed with physical force something that will
not be diminished by using alternative currencies.

JCT: But it's a great example. It's a lot easier to convince
people that the Bank of Canada should operate interest-free
now that interest-free LETS social credits are on the scene.
I've haven't been challenged in years about the feasibility,
like I was in the old when economists would argue with us
for hours on end. That's why having a gnurd like Bill Ryan
is so much fun, having someone willing to take the loser
always losing argument to the entertainment of all who see
where he keeps going wrong is a precious show-biz resource.
Marc, don't you remember how large the crowds of listeners
would be when we'd catch some Bank of Canada economists to
be gnurds for us to to argue with? Now, with LETS timebanks
to point at, there are few gnurds left to argue with.
(Gnurd: Someone who believes the wrong thing and is willing
to argue in public about it and be made fun of though never
realizing it so they'd keep coming back for more and more
punishment."

MG: Thus, the solution will not come about without a direct
reference to the spec being used, that to date has not been
formally expressed nor rigorously elaborated in open fora.

JCT: Time-based currency. Formally expressed and rigorously
elaborated in open fora for me.

MG: The only definitive solution will come when there is
such a spec to compare others with available to anyone.
Best, Marc

JCT: There already is. It's call the "Time standard of
money" to replace the "stuff standard of money."

So anyway, I'm prepared to PayPal any bets made. As soon as
Daniel, Graeme or Myro say "bet," I'll provide the stumbling
block to stump them."


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

>Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 11:49:51 -0400
>From: lsutch@... (Leslie Sutch)
>Subject: FW: Aug 07 Think tank re SPP reminder
>To: turmel@... (john turmel)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Claudia Hudson [mailto:hudcom@...]
>Sent: August 3, 2007 12:40 PM
>Subject: Aug 07 Think tank re SPP reminder

In August 20-21 Prime Minister Harper will ratify the
Security, Prosperity Partnership with Mexico and the US.
What will this do to your life? Viewpoints from politicians,
business people, environmental activists and others will be
heard at the August 07 meeting. Bring your voice to the
discussion. Your country is at stake.

JCT: Okay.

Just see what is to be discussed at Montebello
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56809

Thanks to the Brantford Inventors Club, I am able to arrange
a 'Think Tank for True Canadians'

JCT: What's a non-true (untrue) Canadian?

to discuss the August 20-22 Security, Prosperity Partnership
(SPP) with US and Mexico, in Montebello, Quebec Tuesday,
August 07, 2007 7pm

J's Place Restaurant (upstairs) corner of Market and Erie
Ave. Brantford, Ont
All welcome,
Please pass this on

JCT: Okay, I've done that.

Cost: No charge --please patronize the restaurant
Claudia Hudson, Facilitator RSVP 519 754 0670
hudcom@...

JCT: What advantages are there in forming a North American
Union of Social Currency databases first? Timebanks
permitting international time-trading denominated in Hours
of student labor.

I'll bring plenty of argument that we need fear no Union if
we financially unite ourselves first.

I'll be going to the Brantford Inventors meeting the very
next night evening at J.'s Place and where I'll be doing my
Ballad of the Banking Systems Engineer for the first time.

Later in the month, I'll be attending the Quebec Social
Forum in Montreal urging the adoption of the JEU
international self-operated SEL (Systeme d'Echange Local) in
France.

With the government support of Venezuela in establishing
poor people currency, a world-wide network UNILETS can't be
long in coming.


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

JCT: Parker's Section 24 claim for the return of marijuana
seized by Canada Post was complicated by last week's Long
case in Toronto where a judge ruled that the possession
offence has been unconstitutional since Dec 3 2003 whereas
we've argued it's remained dead since Terry Parker for
possession and then Krieger Day for cultivation too.

My previous post details some supplementary written
representations pointing out the new case. It was decided
that using this brand new case would need extra argument and
so we'll be back on Sep 11 2007 to organize a date for my
factum claiming Long as an Ace, and the Crown's factum in
rebuttal. So here's the Long decision:

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

_ AND _

CLIFFORD LONG

Before Justice H. Borenstein
Heard on March 28 and May 2, 2006
Reasons for Judgment released on July 13, 2007

Chris De Sa and Jason Mitschele for the Crown
Brian McAllister for the accused Clifford Long

BORENSTEIN J.:

OVERVIEW

[1] On September 23, 2005, Clifford Long was a passenger in
a car that was stopped by the police for a seatbelt
infraction. He was allegedly in possession of three and a
half grams of marijuana at the time and has been charged
with possession of cannabis marijuana under 30 grams
contrary to s. 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances
Act ("CDSA").

[2] Mr. Long submits that the law prohibiting possession of
marijuana in s.4(1) of the CDSA is unconstitutional as
Parliament has failed to enact a constitutionally acceptable
medical marijuana exemption.

[3] In Parker, it was established that, if Parliament
intends to criminalize possession of marijuana, it can do so
only as long as there is a constitutionally acceptable
exemption for seriously ill persons who require marijuana to
alleviate symptoms associated with their illness ("medical
marijuana exemption").

[4] After Parker was decided, the Government attempted to
create a medical marijuana exemption by enacting the Medical
Marijuana Access Regulations ("MMAR").

[5] In Hitzig, the Court of Appeal found that that attempt
failed and was unconstitutional. Three regulations in the
MMAR in particular set up barriers that overly restricted
access to a licit supply of marijuana for medical purposes.
A constitutionally acceptable exemption could not unduly
limit reasonable access to marijuana for medical purposes.
The Court of Appeal struck down those three regulations thus
removing the barriers to reasonable access.

[6] Two months after Hitzig was decided, the Government re-
enacted two of those three regulations struck down by the
Court of Appeal but implemented a policy where the
Government would maintain a supply of marijuana and allow
eligible persons to seek access to that supply. Permissive
regulations were enacted to allow the Government to
distribute marijuana from its supply without contravening
any laws. The regulations neither required the Government to
have a supply of marijuana nor to provide one. It merely
permitted eligible persons to seek access to the
Government's supply and permitted the Government to supply
marijuana.

[7] Mr. Long submits that re-enacting the regulations
already found to have unduly restricted access renders the
exemption constitutionally unacceptable.

JCT: This is the "gimme" from the Government lawyers.

He submits that it cannot be saved by resort to a permissive
policy that merely allows the Government to supply marijuana
but does not entitle seriously ill persons to marijuana from
the Government supply nor does it require the Government to
have such a supply.

JCT: Nothing but losing the prohibition forces them to keep
a supply.

It is the Government's present policy and not any law that
ameliorates the effect of regulations already found to
unduly restrict access. He submits that a Court cannot take
into account a policy in assessing the constitutionality of
the medical marijuana exemption. He submits that a law that
is unconstitutional cannot be saved by resort to a policy
which can be changed at any time.

JCT: So if it's a exemption from policy, it's no good. It
must be an exemption from law?

[8] Mr. Long submits that the exemption is unconstitutional
and therefore, as per Parker, so too is the criminal
prohibition.

[9] The Crown responds to Mr. Long by arguing that there is
no evidence that Mr. Long is in need of medical marijuana
and that he has not provided any factual basis for his claim
that the current exemption violates the Charter. The Crown
argues that the current regime, post Hitzig, is
constitutionally acceptable. It was arrived out after broad
and extensive consultation. The Crown submits that the
current regime meets the Government's constitutional
obligations to those in need of medical marijuana while
still meeting its responsibilities and international
obligations to control marijuana. The Crown argues that I
must consider the policy while assessing the medical
marijuana exemption. They are to be viewed together.

[10] This case raises the question of whether the Government
has fashioned a constitutionally acceptable exemption to the
criminal prohibition on marijuana possession in section 4(1)
of the CDSA. If so, then the criminal prohibition on
possession of marijuana is constitutional.

JCT: Presuming it can be resurrected by the Hitzig Court
once it was declared of no force and effect, not absent.

Is the medical marijuana regime set up by Parliament post
Hitzig constitutionally acceptable?

THE LEGISLATIVE SCHEME

[11] Section 4(1) of the CDSA provides that no person shall
possess marijuana except as authorized by the regulations.
Those who violate s. 4(1) can be imprisoned.

[12] Section 55 of the CDSA empowers the Governor-in-Council
to make regulations exempting persons, or classes of
persons, from the application of the Act or regulations on
such terms as are set out in the regulations.

[13] Section 56. of the CDSA confers broad power on the
Minister of Health to exempt any person from the CDSA or its
regulations where the Minister is of the opinion that doing
so is necessary or in the public interest.

PARKER

[14] In the July 2000 decision of Parker, the Ontario Court
of Appeal held that the law prohibiting possession of
marijuana under the CDSA was unconstitutional. The Court
found that, for some seriously ill people, the use of
marijuana was effective in treating their symptoms.

[15] The Court held that a blanket prohibition on possession
of marijuana violated section 7 of the Charter absent a
constitutionally acceptable medical exemption for those with
a legitimate medical need for marijuana ("medical
marijuana").

[16] Although s.56 of the CDSA empowered the Minister of
Health to exempt persons from the criminal prohibition, s.
56 was constitutionally inadequate as an exemption as it was
based on the unfettered discretion of the Minister. It did
not matter whether a particular Minister was well
intentioned or not or happened to exercise his or her
discretion reasonably. What mattered was the exemption
amounted to unfettered discretion.

[17] The defence argues that unfettered discretion is akin
to a departmental policy to supply marijuana and that
neither can save an unconstitutional law.

[18] Having found the criminal prohibition unconstitutional
absent a medical exemption, the Court considered the remedy
of "reading in" such an exemption. However, the Court agreed
with the Crown submission at the time that, if it found a
violation of s. 7 because the legislation failed to provide
an adequate exemption for medical use, the "only available
remedy" was to strike down the criminal prohibition and
suspend the finding of invalidity for a period of time to
allow Parliament to craft a satisfactory medical exemption.

[19] The Court of Appeal stated that, while "reading in" was
a potential remedy, it declined to do so in view of the
numerous policy choices available to Parliament in creating
a medical marijuana exemption. The choices ranged between
decriminalizing marijuana, to the Government acting as the
sole provider. Reading in was inappropriate if the question
of how the statute ought to be extended to comply with the
Charter could not be answered with a sufficient precision on
the basis of constitutional analysis. The Court stated that
"to read in an exemption in such circumstances would "amount
to making ad hoc choices from a variety of options, none of
which was pointed to with sufficient precision by the
interaction between the statute in question and the
requirements of the Constitution. This is the task of the
legislature not the courts".

JCT: And yet the Hitzig Court deigned fix the exemption.

[20] The Court suspended its declaration of invalidity for
one year to allow the Government to create a valid medical
exemption to the criminal prohibition.

RESPONSE TO PARKER: THE CREATION OF A REGULATORY EXEMPTION

[21] One year less a day later after Parker was released,
the Government enacted the Marijuana Medical Access
Regulations ("MMAR") which created a regulatory exemption to
the criminal prohibition on marijuana.

[22] The regulations prescribed who was eligible for medical
marijuana. Eligible persons were issued Authorizations to
Possess Marijuana ("ATP"). ATP holders could apply for and
obtain a licence to grow marijuana for themselves
("Personal-Use Production Licence or "PPL") or they could
nominate an eligible "designated person" who would be issued
a "Designated-Person Production Licence ("DPL"). The MMAR
made reference to obtaining marijuana from dealers licenced
with the Government of Canada however there were no licenced
dealers supplying marijuana to ATP holders.

[23] The MMAR contained three regulations that specifically
prohibited DPL holders from:

1) being compensated for growing marijuana for ATP holders
(s.34(2));

2) supplying marijuana to more than one ATP holder; and

3) combining production with more than two other DPL
holders.

THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION IN HITZIG

[24] In 2003, the Ontario Court of Appeal reviewed the
medical marijuana exemption in Hitzig.

[25] By the time of the hearing of the Hitzig appeal, the
Government developed and had implemented an "Interim Supply
Policy" ("ISP") where it supplied seeds and dried marijuana
to ATP holders who had not obtained either a PPL or a DPL.
Two regulations were promulgated which allowed the
Government to supply seeds and dried marijuana without
contravening existing laws.

[26] The Crown advised the Court of Appeal of the ISP simply
to make it aware of the state of affairs but did not ask the
Court to consider the ISP in assessing the validity of the
regulatory exemption.

[27] The Court found the three regulations relating to DPL
holders noted above unduly restricted ATP holders' access to
a licit supply of marijuana. These three regulations reduced
the likelihood of ATP holders finding persons willing to act
as designated persons. Given the absence of any other lawful
supply of marijuana, these restrictions inevitably forced
some ATP holders to the illicit market to obtain marijuana.

[28] The Court held that the exemption was unconstitutional.
Given the absence of a constitutionally acceptable
exemption, the criminal prohibition on possession of
marijuana in s.4(1) of the CDSA was unconstitutional in
accordance with the decision in Parker.

JCT: It was unconstitutional, it was struck down, it was
declared invalid, but the Hitzig Court only deemed it absent
until they could help Alan Young resurrect it.

[29] The Court of Appeal determined that the appropriate
remedy was to strike out the three regulations in the MMAR
that unduly limited access to medical marijuana. The Court
declared section 34(2), 41(b) and 54 of the MMAR to be of no
force or effect. This remedy removed the regulations which
restricted access. As modified, the regulatory exemption
created by the MMAR was constitutionally acceptable and
therefore the law prohibiting possession of marijuana was
constitutional.

JCT: Notice how Judge Borenstein goes though the same
chronological gymnastics as all our Crowns. How "was the law
constitutional" when it was just not constitutional. Once he
admitted it was not, he should have written "became once
again" constitutional. Not "was" again.

[30] The Court of Appeal in Hitzig acknowledged that the
Government could address the problem of supply in a manner
different than that crafted by the Court of Appeal as long
as it did not unduly restrict access to medical marijuana.

GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO HITZIG

Evidence of Carole Bouchard

[31] Ms. Carole Bouchard is an employee of Heath Canada. She
is the Director of the Office of Controlled Substances
within Health Canada's "Drug Strategy and Controlled
Substances Programme". She is responsible for the
administration of the CDSA and most of its regulations
including the management of Health Canada's Medical
Marijuana Access Division ("MMAD") and the management and
oversight of the MMAR and Health Canada's Policy on the
Supply of Marijuana Seeds and Dry Marijuana for medical
purposes.

The Goal of Health Canada's Medical Marijuana Programme

[32] According to Ms. Bouchard, the Medical Marijuana
Programme began in 2001 under former Minister of Health,
Allan Rock and has continued under successive Ministers. The
Medical Marijuana Programme has three key elements. It:

(1) creates a regulatory framework to permit persons to
possess and produce marijuana;

(2) encourages research into the safety and efficacy of
medical marijuana; and

(3) seeks to establish a consistent, reliable, legal source
of marijuana for medical purposes in Canada.

[33] Since 2003, the Government's policy development
regarding medical marijuana has been guided by the goal of
replicating the features of a traditional health care model.
The Government's goal was to:

1) create a Government owned source of marijuana that
complies with product standards accompanied by a longer term
goal of phasing out personal cultivation;

2) distribute marijuana to authorized persons through
pharmacies

3) monitor the risks and benefits of marijuana for medical
purposes and educating patients and physicians

4) improve post-market surveillance to monitor safety and
efficacy.

[34] In the summer of 2003, pending the hearing of the
Hitzig appeal, Health Canada implemented the ISP which
provided authorized persons with the option of obtaining dry
marijuana or seeds from a new Government supply. The
Government entered into a contract with Prairie Plant
Systems Inc. to produce marijuana on its behalf. The initial
objective of the ISP was to render the exemption and
therefore the criminal prohibition constitutional. The ISP
was supposed to be in place only until the Hitzig appeal was
heard.

[35] In order to implement the ISP, a regulation was
promulgated on July 8, 2003 exempting dried marijuana
produced under contract with the Government of Canada from
the application of the FDA and its regulations. This
regulation allowed the Government of Canada to distribute
dried marijuana and seeds without violating any laws.

[36] Health Canada established a Stakeholder Advisory
Committee on Medical Marijuana (the "Advisory Committee")
comprised of ATP holders, physicians, pharmacists,
researchers, representatives of health care organizations,
health care professionals and law enforcement officials. The
Advisory Committee was established prior to Hitzig. Its work
was accelerated following the Court of Appeal's decision in
Hitzig.

[37] Two months after Hitzig was decided, the Government
adopted a new approach to the supply of marijuana for
medical purposes. The Government would permanently offer ATP
holders who did not have a PPL or DPL the alternative of
obtaining marijuana from a government supply. The Crown
characterized the Government's response to Hitzig as
"entrenching" the ISP policy. Access would no longer be a
problem as long as the policy was being implemented. This
new policy dated December 3, 2003 is called the "Policy on
Supply of Marijuana Seeds and Dried Marijuana for Medical
Purposes" ("the Supply Policy") and it replaced the ISP of
July 2003.

[38] In order to implement this policy, the Governor-in
Council promulgated the necessary regulations so that the
Government was permitted to distribute dried marijuana and
seeds without contravening any laws.

[39] As a result of this new Government supply of marijuana
available for medical purposes, the Governor-in Council re-
enacted two of the three regulations found by the Court of
Appeal to have limited access. Sections 41(b) and 54 were
re-enacted. Several less important regulations that existed
were also repealed.

[40] According to Ms. Bouchard, these amendments to the MMAR
post-Hitzig were meant to achieve five objectives.

1) to give "national effect" to that part of the Hitzig
ruling which struck down the prohibition on compensating DPL
holders. To that end, the amendments:
formally repealed s.34(2) which had been struck down by the
Court of Appeal;
added the word "provide" to s. 34(1)(e) of the MMAR which
had already permitted DPL holders to "transfer, give or
deliver directly" marijuana to ATP holders; and
amended the Marijuana Exemption (FDA) Regulations to exempt
marijuana produced by DPL holders

2) to enable ATP holders the option of having reasonable
access to the Government's supply of marijuana by:
amending s.5(1)(e) of the MMAR to reflect the availability
of a Government supply of dried marijuana;
adding s. 70.1 to the MMAR to enable the Government's supply
of dried marijuana to be shipped directly to ATP holders.

3) to maintain control over the distribution of marijuana
and to respect Canada's international obligations concerning
cultivation and distribution of marijuana by
re-enacting ss.41(b) and 54 of the MMAR struck down by the
Court of Appeal

4) to facilitate and enhance access to marijuana by
repealing section 34 of the MMAR which required DPL holders
to transfer marijuana directly to ATP holders and section 56
which required DPL holders to maintain particular records
and books.

5) to formally repeal the regulation requiring a second
medical specialist that had been struck down by the Court of
Appeal.

[41] The Supply policy enhances access beyond the ISP in
that it:

1) allows an applicant to receive both initial seeds and a
four month initial supply of dried marijuana pending their
first harvest whereas the ISP allowed for one or the other;

2) eliminates the "one-time only" provision for seeds;

3) eliminates the requirement that an ATP holder must
exhaust all other sources before applying for access to the
Government's supply:

4) allows for shipment of dried marijuana directly to ATP
holders as opposed to their medical practitioners.

[42] Subsequent amendments were made to the MMAR to
streamline eligibility and administrative requirements and
to authorize the communication of information to the police
The amendments also provide authority to conduct a limited
pilot project to assess the feasibility of distributing
marijuana through a pharmacy-based system without a
prescription.

[43] According to Ms. Bouchard, since July 2007, the MMAD
receives an average of 75 new applications for ATP and 78
renewal applications monthly. As of January 5, 2007, 1678
persons in Canada have ATPs. 1029 persons hold PPL licences
and150 hold DPLs.

[44] As of January 5, 2007, 320 people were receiving dried
marijuana from the Government's supply. 248 people had
received seeds and 142 people have received a four month
supply of dried marijuana pending their first harvest from
seeds provided by Health Canada. The MMAD receives on
average 37 applications for a supply of either dried
marijuana or seeds from the Governments.

IS THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA EXEMPTION CONSTITUTIONALLY
ACCEPTABLE

[45] In my view, the amended MMAR creates a constitutionally
unacceptable medical marijuana exemption.

JCT: So the "gimme" of the government re-installing what had
been declared unconstitutional makes it bad again.

[46] The amended exemption is premised upon the Government
filling the void and supplying marijuana to some ATP holders
so that reasonable access to marijuana for medical purposes
will no longer be impeded. That is in fact the Government's
goal. Eligible persons who require access to the Government
supply of marijuana are supposed to have access to that
supply.

[47] To implement this new approach to the supply of
marijuana, the Governor-in Council enacted permissive
regulations which allows the Government to supply marijuana.
It also re-enacted, for legitimate reasons, two of the three
regulations that have been found to unduly limit lawful
access to a reasonable supply of marijuana.

[48] Even though the criminal prohibition still exists and
the overly restrictive regulations revived, in view of the
policy being implemented through the permissive regulations,
the exemption mechanism is presently working. Since the
Government began supplying marijuana pursuant to the ISP and
then the Supply Policy, the Government has had sufficient
marijuana to accommodate every application for dried
marijuana or seeds made by authorized persons. The
Government providing an alternative source of supply is
integral to the entire scheme. Access is no longer a problem
due to the policy.

[49] The regulations merely permit the Government to supply
marijuana, they do not require it nor do they entitle
authorized persons to anything other than the right to ask
the Government for access. This is in contrast to an
eligible ATP holder applying for a licence to produce
marijuana, be it a DPL or PPL. In those circumstances, the
Minister effectively must issue the licence.

[50] In my view, a criminal prohibition together with a
regulatory exemption that unduly restricts access to a licit
supply of medical marijuana is unconstitutional and cannot
be saved by resort to a policy, regardless of whether the
policy is permitted by regulation. The fact the policy is
permitted by the enabling regulations does not add much in
my view. One can assume that a policy being implemented will
be lawful. That does not alter the fact that the criminal
prohibition on possession of marijuana is prescribed by law
and the regulations which authorizes possession but unduly
limits access is prescribed by law.

[51] If the law is unconstitutional as a result of creating
unreasonable limitations on access, it cannot be rendered
constitutional by resort to a policy.

JCT: Yet the Hitzig Court of Appeal said it could.

[52] In R. v. Smith, the Supreme Court held that the
mandatory minimum seven year sentence for importing
narcotics was unconstitutional as it amounted to cruel and
unusual punishment contrary to the Charter. This was so
regardless of the Crown policy in place to exercise its
discretion not to seek that sentence where, in the Crown's
view, it was not warranted.

[53] Following the hearing of this matter, the Crown sent
the Court a copy of the Little Sisters case with an
accompanying letter stating that it viewed the case as
"dispositive" of the issue in its favour. The defence agreed
that it was dispositive but asserted that it is was
dispositive in its favour. Neither side made further
submissions on this case.

[54] Little Sisters was a case where a Custom's Law that
prohibited the importation of material deemed obscene under
the Criminal Code was being implemented by customs officials
in a manner that targeted a store servicing the gay and
lesbian communities. Customs officers were detaining the
store's imported goods as obscene. The legislation required
the importer to establish that the material imported was not
obscene. The Appellants challenged the law on various bases
including the reverse onus and on section 15. The Supreme
Court held that the reverse onus was unconstitutional.

[55] The entire Court agreed that the law was being applied
in a discriminatory manner. The issue was whether the source
of the discriminatory implementation was the law itself or
the manner in which it was being implemented.

[56] The essence of the majority decision was that the law
(absent the reverse onus) was constitutional as it only
permitted customs officials to detain obscene material.

[57] The dissent held that the law should contain a specific
requirement that administrative policies must only permit
the detention of obscene material. In short, the dissent
held that the law must contain a provision requiring that
the law be implemented constitutionally.

[58] The majority disagreed holding that there was no
requirement that the law include a provision stating that it
be administered or implemented constitutionally. Parliament
was entitled to assume that it would.

[59] That is different in my view from our case. Little
Sisters holds that Parliament can assume that a
constitutional law will be implemented constitutionally. It
does not state that a law that creates unconstitutional
barriers can be rendered constitutional by being implemented
fairly. Quite the opposite.

[60] In my view, Little Sisters supports Mr. Long's
position.

[61] That resort to a permissive policy cannot render an
unconstitutional law constitutional is also consistent with
sections 1 and 52 of the Charter which declares that the
rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter are subject to
such reasonable limits, prescribed by law and, any law that
is inconsistent with the Charter is, to the extent of the
inconsistency, of no force or effect. It is not any law,
except as may be ameliorated by policy.

[62] It is trite to say that laws enjoy a qualitatively
different status than policies. They circumscribe behaviour.
They confer rights and privileges. They permit. They
penalize, all with the force of law.

[63] There is nothing in the CDSA or the MMAR that requires
the Government to supply marijuana to eligible, authorized
persons. The law requires the Government to issue a licence
to produce to eligible authorized persons who apply. For
those who do not have a licence, the exemption does not
require the Government to supply them with marijuana.
Pursuant to the Policy being implemented, those persons are
in fact receiving marijuana. Needless to say, there is
nothing in the criminal prohibition or in the regulatory
exemption that requires the Government to comply with its
policy. There is nothing in the regulations that requires
the government to enter in contracts with licenced dealers,
or to provide a supply. They can stop tomorrow. Today - they
are making a supply available.

[64] Reasonable access is now dependent on policy, not on
law. On a law that has been found to have set up barriers to
reasonable access. That is not a constitutionally acceptable
exemption.

[65] I have reviewed the cases provided by the Crown which
have reviewed and upheld the current exemption post-Hitzig.
While those cases were helpful, none appear to have
considered the issue raised by Mr. McAllister on Mr. Long's
behalf.

[66] The Crown submits that I must consider the policy of
supplying marijuana in assessing the constitutionality of
the entire exemption. For the reasons given, it is my view
that a policy that ameliorates the effect of an
unconstitutional law cannot render the law constitutional.

[67] If the government re-enacts regulations that have been
found to unduly restrict access, and seeks to address the
deficiency by being a supply source of marijuana, then it
must take on the legal obligation to supply it.

[68] The exemption depends on the Government supplying
marijuana which it is now doing only as a result of the
policy. In my view, the exemption as re-enacted would only
be constitutionally acceptable if the Government took on the
obligation by law to supply marijuana to those in need.
Without such an obligation, the exemption is
constitutionally unacceptable. This is more so where the
cornerstone of the exemption depends on the Government
supplying marijuana.

[69] Not taking on the obligation by law is not very
different, from a legal standpoint, from the Government
merely re-enacting provisions found to be unconstitutional
but telling the public and the Courts not to worry as it
would now supply marijuana despite the unconstitutional
limitations.

[70] If the Government intends to criminalize possession of
marijuana constitutionally, while limiting access to
marijuana by re-enacting the regulations struck down in
Hitzig, then it must simultaneously, by law, take on the
obligation to supply marijuana. They must remove the
barriers to access or impose on itself the obligation to
supply marijuana to eligible authorized persons who do not
obtain a licence, not simply as a matter of policy but as a
matter of law.

[71] Had the Government obligated itself by law to supply
marijuana in accordance with its policy, the regulatory
exemption would be a constitutionally acceptable. Without
that obligation, in my view, it is not.

Released:  July 13, 2007
Signed: "Justice H. Borenstein"

JCT: So what do you think, was the law also dead because the
supply had to be guaranteed in law rather than policy? Is it
as good a reason as the Interpretation Act says a law that's
been invalidated is to be deemed repealed and the Hitzig
court couldn't unrepeal the Parker invalidation or could the
Hitzig court unrepeal what the Parker court struck down but
then the government put the bad conditions back causing it
become invalid 2 months after Hitzig had resurrected it?

Of course, it's easy for them to fix.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

JCT: Parker was supposed to be heard last month but Judge
Clements couldn't show and it got put off until July 26. New
news since then let me fax this off this morning:

                   ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
                     (Criminal Division)
Between:
                       Terrance Parker
                                                    Applicant
                             and
                    Her Majesty the Queen
                                                   Respondent

            SUPPLEMENTARY WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS

1. Applicant is claiming the return of marijuana on the
basis that the prohibition on the possession of marijuana in
S.4 of the CDSA was no longer known to law at the time it
was seized by Canada Post in 2006.

2. Applicant argues that the S.4 prohibition on possession
of marijuana remains no longer known to law since it was
repealed pursuant to S.2(2) of the Interpretation Act by the
"Parker I" Court of Appeal in August 2001 despite the
"Hitzig" Court of Appeal ruling in October 2003 that they
could unrepeal the over-2-year-old invalidation to which
Applicant rebuts only Parliament legislates new law.

2. http://cannabislink.ca/legal/r_v_long.htm is a copy of
the judgment that made news across Canada last week where
Justice Borenstein ruled in R v. Long that the S.4
prohibition became again no longer known to law in Dec 2003,
just two months after the Oct 2003 Hitzig resurrection of
prohibition, because the Government re-instituted some of
the provisions that had been struck down as unconstitutional
by the Hitzig court. A "gimme."

3. Whether the Hitzig Court had the power to
unrepeal the Parker Court's Invalidation for two months
until the Government's fumble in Dec 2003 caused prohibition
to become unconstitutional again, an "on-off-on-off"
judicial procedure, the S.4(1) prohibition on possession of
marijuana is repealed at the present time; at the time of
the seizure in 2006; and since Dec 2003.

Dated at Brantford on July 23 2007.
___________________________
Agent for the Applicant,
John C. Turmel
8-37 Colborne St. E.
Brantford, N3T 2G3,
Tel/Fax: 519-753-0645
Email: turmel@...

JCT: Of course, we know from Max Cornelssen's case that the
Crown claims it isn't a "gimme" because they covered the
need elsewhere first. So they're covered but the court says
the cover wasn't legislated right, even if they claim it
works.

We'll know 10am Thursday July 26 2007 in Brampton Court.


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

>Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:07:30 -0400
>From: anna.rudy@... ("anna.rudy")
>Subject: Seegobin Crown Factum for s.24 MedPot
>To: MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com

PART 1 - RESPONDENT'S STATEMENT AS TO FACTS

In this proceeding, the Applicant, Rudy Seegobin (the
"Applicant) has applied to a justice, pursuant to section 24
of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (the "CDSA"), for
the return to him of marijuana seized by the police on July
24, 2006.  The Respondent opposes this application.

RESPONDENT'S STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On July 24, 2006, following a traffic stop by OPP Cst.
John Sucee, the Applicant, Rudy Seegobin was found to be in
possession of 77.1 grams of cannabis marijuana.1

2. On July 24, 2006, the Applicant was subject to a
probation order following a conviction for cultivating
marijuana. The Applicant received a conditional discharge.2

3. On July 24, 2006, the Applicant did not possess proper
authorization to possess pursuant to the Marijuana Medical
Access Regulations (MMARs).

4. As a result of the seizure on July 24, 2006, two charges
were laid against the Applicant:  i) possession of cannabis
marijuana greater than 30 grams contrary to s.4(1) of the
CDSA, and,  ii) breach of probation contrary to s. 733.1 of
the Criminal Code.3

JCT: They forgot to mention that on July 27, police raided
his home grow-op and charged him with the the S.7(1)
marijuana cultivation offence.

5. On November 29, 2006, a trial date of April 13, 2007 was
set.

6. On January 15, 2007 Mr. Seegobin was issued a personal
use production license (PPL) under the MMARs.  Under the
terms of this license, he was entitled to grow no more than
25 plants and possess at one time 150 grams of cannabis
marijuana.

JCT: Charges in Perth were stayed.

7. On February 12, 2007, the Applicant served the Crown with
a Notice of Application, under s. 24 of the CDSA, for the
return of the seized marijuana.

JCT: And for Prohibition of Prosecution a la Krieger.

8. On February 14, 2007, the charges of possession of
cannabis marijuana s. 4(1) of the CDSA and the breach of
probation contrary to s. 733.1 of the Criminal Code were
stayed at the request of the Crown.

JCT: But he didn't have a legitimate exemption at the time
of the offence, only a legitimate medical need.

9. While it appears moldy, the cannabis marijuana seized
from the Applicant still remains in police storage.4

JCT: If they ruined it, they can pay their estimated value,
usually about 10 times more than the street value.

PART TWO- THE RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENT

It is the Respondent's submission that:
i) if one reviews the jurisprudence there is no such thing
as a "court-granted Hitzig exemption"; and
ii) ss.24 to 27 of the CDSA provides a complete roadmap for
determining whether the Applicant is entitled to the return
of the seized marijuana.  The Applicant has failed to: a)
bring the Application within 60 days of seizure as per the
requirements of the legislation;

JCT: So he can ask for an extension of time.

and, b) establish that he was legally entitled to possess
marijuana on the date of seizure, July 24, 2006.

JCT: He was legally in medical need at the time.

The Respondent submits that given these failings, this Court
is without jurisdiction to issue the Order requested by the
Applicant. As such, the Respondent requests that the
Application be denied.

A. The "Court-Granted Hitzig Exemption"

10. The Applicant states in his Application that there
exists a legal remedy known as a "court-granted Hitzig
exemption" with respect to the prohibition against
possession of cannabis marijuana.

11. As such, the Applicant states that he was entitled to a
"court-granted Hitzig exemption" on the date that the
marijuana was seized (July 24, 2006). Therefore, the
argument follows that his possession of cannabis marijuana
at that time was lawful.

12. The Applicant based this argument on four cases:  Hitzig
v. Canada, R. v. Krieger6, R. v. Seegobin7 and R. v. Derek
Francisco.

13. The Respondent respectfully submits that-on the review
of the case law-there is no such thing as a "court-granted
Hitzig exemption". This argument will be explained by
reference to the judicial background behind Hitzig. The
analysis commences with consideration of the Ontario Court
of Appeal decision in R. v. Parker.

(a) R v. Parker (Ontario Court of Appeal)

14. On December 10, 1997, Sheppard J. stayed proceedings
brought against Terry Parker for cultivating marijuana
contrary to the Narcotic Control Act, and for possessing
marijuana contrary to the CDSA. Sheppard J. concluded that
Mr. Parker required marijuana to control his epilepsy, and
that the prohibition against marijuana infringed on the
Applicant's rights under section 7 of the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms. The judge read into legislation an
exemption for persons possessing or cultivating marijuana
for their "personal medically approved use."8

5. On appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal concluded that the
trial judge was correct in finding that the Applicant needed
marijuana to control the symptoms of his epilepsy, and that
the prohibition on the cultivation and possession of
marijuana was unconstitutional. The Court held that the
possibility of an exemption under s. 56 of the CDSA was
dependent upon the unfettered and unstructured discretion of
the Minister of Health and was thus inconsistent with the
principles of fundamental justice. However, the Court
disagreed with Sheppard J.'s remedy of reading into
legislation an exemption for medical use, stating that this
was a matter for Parliament to resolve. The Court,
therefore, declared the prohibition against possession of
marijuana as set out in subsection 4 (1) of the CDSA to be
invalid, but suspended the declaration of invalidity for one
year to provide the Government of Canada with an opportunity
to respond.9

(b) Marijuana Medical Access Regulations (the MMARs)

16. In responding to the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision
in R. v. Parker, the Government of Canada enacted, on July
30, 2001, the Marijuana Medical Access Regulations (the
"MMARs").10  The MMARs to possess marijuana (an "ATP"), and
a personal-use production licence (a "PPL") to permit the
production of marijuana for medical purposes or a designed-
person production licence (a "DPL") to permit a designated
person to grow marijuana on behalf of an ATP holder.

JCT: The Court of Appeal ruled it had not provided so.

An ATP is issued to persons ordinarily resident in Canada
who, with the advice and support of their medical
practitioner(s), can demonstrate medical need.  A PPL or DPL
permits the holder of the licence to, among other things,
produce marijuana in quantities up to a specified maximum.

(c) Hitzig et al.v. Canada (Ontario Superior Court)

17. In the fall of 2002, three civil applications (Turmel,
Paquette and Hitzig) concerning marijuana for medical
purposes

JCT: It was Parker, Turmel and Paquette, Hitzig, et al, and
Turmel wasn't sick so ours wasn't for medical purposes.

were heard together by Lederman J. of the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice. On January 9, 2003, Lederman J. released
his decision which concluded that the absence of a legal
supply of marijuana for authorized persons offended basic
tenets of the legal system and was inconsistent with the
principles of fundamental justice.  Lederman J. therefore
declared the MMARS to be unconstitutional and invalid on the
grounds that the framework failed to adequately resolve
issues related to source and supply of marijuana. However,
Lederman J. suspended the declaration of invalidity for six
months so as to permit the Government of Canada an
opportunity to amend the MMAR or otherwise provide a legal
source of supply of marijuana for those persons authorized
to possess under the MMARs.11 All parties appealed the
decision of Lederman J.

JCT: Parker and Turmel-Paquette appealed and are styled as
Appellants; the Crown and the Hitzigs as Respondents.

(d) Hitzig et al. v. Canada (Ontario Court of Appeal)

18. The Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in the
Hitzig matter on October 7, 2003. This decision contains
ruling in regard to three related appeals.

JCT: That's why not styling the case after the Appellant
Parker but after the Respondent Hitzig is so crooked.

The Court of Appeal determined that the MMARs were
constitutionally defective insofar as they did not provide
for reasonable access to a legal source of supply of
marijuana for medical purposes, as some authorized persons
were dependent on illegal sources to obtain the marijuana
that the MMARs authorized them to possess.

JCT: The MMARs were defective, no "insofar" limiting the
decision that the MMARs didn't constitutionally work.

In addition, the Court determined to be unconstitutional the
requirement for some applicants to have the support of a
second specialist to establish medical need. The Court
remedied the constitutional deficiencies that it had
identified by declaring the following provisions of the
MMARs to be invalid:
a. the prohibition in subsection 34 (2) against compensating
the holder of a DLP for growing marijuana and supplying it
to the holder of the ADP;
b. the provision in subsection 41 (b) preventing a DLP
holder from growing marijuana for more than the ADP holder;
c. the prohibition in section 54 against DLP holders
producing marijuana in common with more than two other DLP
holders; and
d. the provisions in paragraph 4(2) (c) and section 7
requiring a declaration by a second specialist.

19. As the Court remedies these deficiencies, the MMARs, as
modified by the Court, continued to be constitutional,

JCT: They could not continue to be constitutional when they
were unconstitutionally invalid a moment before. Seems to be
a standard Crown misconception.

and thus the prohibition on the possession of marijuana,
under the section 4 of the CDSA, continued to be
constitutional as well.

JCT: It "continued to be constitutional" after being
unconstitutional?

The Applicant's argument appears to be based on a
misunderstanding of the order and reasons for decision of
the Court of Appeal in Hitzig. The reasons for decision of
the Court of Appeal clearly indicate that section 4 of the
CDSA was not repealed: 12

JCT: The Court contradicted Parliament. So who will the
judges obey, Parliament or a Court?

[166] The declarations of the invalidity we propose remove
the single unconstitutional barrier to eligibility and
sufficient barriers to supply that ADT holders will be
reasonably able to meet their medical needs from licit
sources. As a result, the MMAR as modified become a
constitutionally sound medical exemption to the marijuana
prohibition in s. 4 of the CDSA. .

JCT: Since the court says they "become constitutional," why
does the Crown say they "continued to be?"

[170] In R. v. Parker, supra, this court declared the
prohibition invalid as of July 31, 2001 if by that date the
Government had not enacted a constitutionally sound
exemption. Our decision in this case confirms that it did
not do so. Hence the marijuana prohibition in s. 4 has been
of no force or effect since July 31, 2001. Since the July 8,
2003 regulation did not address the eligibility deficiency,
that alone could not have cured the problem. However, our
order had the result of constitutionalizing the medical
exemption created by the Government. As a result, the
marijuana prohibition in s. 4 is no longer inconsistent with
the provisions of the Constitution. Although Parliament may
subsequently choose to change it, that prohibition is now no
longer invalid, but is of full force and effect. Those who
establish medical need are simply exempted from it.

JCT: Bingo. The Hitzig exemption.

This consequence removes the cloud of uncertainty from the
marijuana prohibition in s. 4 of the CDSA - a cloud which we
were told in argument has created very considerable
confusion for courts and law agencies alike.

[171] Second, in argument, counsel for the Government
strongly urged that if we found the MMAR to be
constitutionally flawed, we should be as precise as possible
in specifying the corrective measures to be taken. Our
remedy quite precisely determines the barriers on the MMAR
which, if removed, would render it a constitutionally sound
medical exemption to s. 4 of the CDSA. Our order represents
a minimal intrusion on the Governments scheme of medical
exemption. It leaves untouched the licensed possession
aspect of the scheme and modifies the licensed production
aspect of it only enough to make it constitutionally
acceptable.

20. These passages from the decision in Hitzig clearly
reveal that the court did not determine section 4 of the
CDSA to be an enactment that had been repealed.

JCT: No, they did not obey the Interpretation Act which says
laws that have been struck down are to be deemed repealed
but instead said that laws struck down are to be deemed
absent until fixed by the courts or Parliament. They sure
got a lot of crime out of that one Hitzig judgment.

Instead, the Court determined that the marijuana prohibition
within section 4 of the CDSA was inoperative from July 31,
2001, until October 7, 2003, but thereafter the prohibition
continued to be operative. (e)  Hitzig et al. v. Canada
(Supreme Court of Canada)

JCT: Judges can't say to ignore the Interpretation Act and
deem it inoperative until fixed.

21. Hitzig and others sought leave to appeal the October 7,
2003, decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal. On May 6,
2004, their application for leave to appeal was dismissed by
the Supreme Court of Canada.

22. John Turmel sought leave to appeal the October 7, 2003,
decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal. On March 11, 2005,
Turmel's application for leave to appeal was dismissed by
the Supreme Court of Canada.

JCT: Hitzig was dismissed for lack of merit, Turmel was
dismissed as abandoned for failure to get 1 document in on
time. Not on the merits.

23. On April 6, 2006, the Supreme Court dismissed Terry
Parker's application for leave to appeal.

JCT: As abandoned, not on the merits.

24. The respondent submits that the review of the case law
permeating from Hitzig illustrates there does not exist a
"court-granted Hitzig exemption". In the case of Mr. Hitzig,
the "exemption" was not as much as a true exemption, but the
fact that Justice Lederman of the Ontario Superior Court
ruled the MMARs were constitutionally unsound. This
situation has since been remedied (as described in the
Ontario Court of Appeal in R v. Hitzig).

JCT: Not deemed "repealed," but deemed "unsound." They just
can't use the wording in the legislation and have to keep
using "inconsistent," "unsound," "absent" for "repealed."

(f) R. v. Krieger (Alberta Court of Appeal)

25. In his Application, the Applicant submitted that "I
sought an order quashing all my charges relating to
marijuana under s. 7(1) and 5(2) of the CDSA as unknown to
law on the grounds Parliament has not re-enacted s. 7
cultivation (and by implication s.4 possession) prohibitions
since they were struck down by the Alberta Court of Appeal
in R. v. Krieger on December 4, 2002."

JCT: And didn't get a stay by Feb 2 2003, 60 days. To get
through the Crown's chaff camouflaging the truth, I just
dropped all references to the trafficking charge and the
true story on the cultivation charge remained:

<<26. In 1999, Grant Krieger was charged with the offences
of production of marijuana (contrary to subsection 7(1) of
the CDSA)...
He brought a motion seeking a declaration that these
provisions of the CDSA violate section7 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. On December 11, 2000,
pursuant to subsection 24(1) of the Charter, Acton J. struck
down subsection 7(1) of the CDSA and stayed the charge
against Krieger in respect of subsection 7(1) of the CDSA...
On appeal, in a decision pronounced on December 4, 2002, the
Alberta Court of Appeal confirmed the ruling which struck
down subsection 7(1) of the CDSA...
On December 23, 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed
an application for leave to appeal from this decision of the
Alberta Court of Appeal.>>

27. In short, the Krieger decisions contain a ruling that
the production offence (subsection 7(1) of the CDSA) was
contrary to the Charter in respect of Krieger.

JCT: Not only law for Krieger but law for Canada.

28. The Krieger rulings have no bearing on the hearing of
this Application for a number of reasons.

29. First, since they emanate from Alberta courts, they are
not binding on Ontario courts.

JCT: Must it be struck down in all 14 provinces?

As well, these rulings on the production offences have no
bearing on the possession offence under section 4 of the
CDSA.

JCT: Supreme Court note and the Crown David Frankel in the
case say "cultivation, and by implication, possession."

Furthermore, the decision of Acton J. in Krieger was in
respect of the events that pre-dated the MMARs, and Acton
J.'s decision was issued prior to the Ontario Court of
Appeal's decision in Hitzig, and thus the decision of Acton
J. has been superceded by the MMARs and the subsequent
decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

JCT: Acton, supported by the Alberta Court of Appeal, cannot
be superceded by the Ontario Court of Appeal. Forgetting to
mention that her decision was backed up by their Court of
Appeal makes it sound like "the decision of Acton J. has
been superceded by the subsequent decision of the Ontario
Court of Appeal" when the decision of the Alberta Court of
Appeal cannot be. Leaving in the Alberta Court of Appeal's
role belies the Crown point.

B. Sections 24 to 27 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances
Act: the "Disposal of Controlled Substances" Provisions

30. In the Respondent's submission, the statutory scheme
governing the return of the controlled substances set out in
the CDSA provides a complete framework for the resolution of
the Application.

31. Section 24(1) of the CDSA states:

24(1) Where a controlled substance has been seized, found or
otherwise acquired by a peace officer or an inspector, any
person may, within sixty days after the date of the seizure,
finding or acquisition, on prior notification being given to
the Attorney General in the prescribed manner, apply, by
notice in writing to a justice in the jurisdiction in which
the substance is being detained, for an order to return that
substance to the person  (emphasis added)

32. The Respondent submits that the key words in ss. 24(1)
are "any person may, within sixty days after the date of
seizure.

33. The Applicant failed to bring his application within
sixty days after the date of seizure of July 24, 2006. The
application was served on February 12, 2007, close to seven
months after seizure.

34. On a plain reading of ss. 24(1), the Respondent submits
that this Application should be dismissed for failure to
comply with the time limits delineated under 24(1) of the
CDSA.

JCT: If it's still on hand, as they say it is, an extension
of time is sought.

35. Every enactment is deemed remedial, and shall be given
such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation
as best ensures the attainment of its objects. Why is the 60
day time period important under this legislation? Because
under s. 25, if an application has not been made within 60
days, the peace officer can get the Minister of Health to
dispose of the quantity of the substance not required for
court purposes. In that regard, section 25 of the CDSA
states:
25. Where no application for the return of a controlled
substance has been made under subsection 24(1) within sixty
days after the date of the seizure, finding or acquisition
by a peace officer or inspector and the substance or a
portion of it is not required for the purposes of any
preliminary inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this
Act or any other Act of Parliament, the substance or the
portion not required for the purposes of the proceeding
shall be delivered  to the Minister to be disposed of or
otherwise dealt with in accordance with the regulations or,
if there are no applicable regulations, in such manner as
the Minister directs.  (emphasis added)

JCT: Fortunately, it hasn't been yet destroyed if it's
required for court purposes. So if it's still there, where's
the justice in denying it to its lawful owner?

36. Coming back to deciphering ss. 24(1) of the CDSA, the
word "may" contained within subsection 24(1) should be
construed as imperative. In usual cases, "may" is
permissive. However, when one considers the legislation as a
whole, the word "may" is imperative. The legislation - under
ss. 25 of the CDSA as discussed above - provides that the
controlled substances can be legally disposed by police on
an ex parte basis after the 60-day window. Therefore, if a
person such as the Applicant decides to exercise the option
of bringing an application to have seized controlled
substances returned, they must do so within 60 days.

JCT: Unless it's not been disposed of yet. There's no reason
justice should be denied if there's no fait accomplit.

37. The legislative scheme revolves around the sixty day
period. Furthermore, if the police have to destroy the drugs
because the drugs have become a health risk they can rely
upon section 26 of the CDSA at any time and go before a
justice on an ex parte basis.

JCT: That's not an issue here.

If someone within 60 days of seizure makes a claim under
24(1), they can be recompensed if the drugs have been
destroyed. Outside the 60 days, any Applicant is out of luck
for compensation:

JCT: So give him back what you can.

26.(1) Where the Minister has reasonable grounds to believe
that a controlled substance that has been seized, found or
otherwise acquired by a peace officer or inspector
constitutes a potential security, public health or safety
hazard, the Minister may, on prior notification being given
to the Attorney General in the prescribed manner, at any
time, make an application, ex parte, to a justice for an
order that the substance or a portion of it be forfeited to
Her Majesty to be disposed of or otherwise dealt with in
accordance with the regulations or, if there are no
applicable regulations, in such manner as the Minister
directs.

JCT: No indication that it's a potential hazard.

38. No provisions exist within the legislation for altering
the 60-day time period. Furthermore, the legislation didn't
use words such as "reasonable notice" or the like to frame
the time period for bringing an application The legislation
simply chose 60 days. Mr. Seegobin is outside that 60 day
time period to rely upon s. 24.

39. It is therefore the Respondent's submission that this
Court has no jurisdiction to consider Mr. Seegobin's
application under s.24(1) of the CDSA.

40. Furthermore, it appears that if the Respondent is asking
for the Court to adopt an elastic and liberal interpretation
of the section, it should be remembered that if the
Applicant brought the application in the correct 60-day time
period, it could not have been granted: he was not legally
authorized to possess marijuana at that time.

JCT: Actually, he was authorized by medical need even if
government were slow getting around to accepting it.

41. Also, the legal authority for the Applicant to possess
and cultivate marijuana under the PPL (issued January 15,
2007) does not retroactively now make his illegal possession
on July 24, 2006 legal.

JCT: No, medical need at the time made his possession legal.

42. However, if the Applicant fails to meet the criteria in
s.24 of the CDSA, that doesn't necessarily end the story for
the Applicant. The Applicant could try and get the cannabis
marijuana returned under section 27 of the CDSA:

27. Subject to section 24, where, pursuant to a preliminary
inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this or any other
Act of Parliament, the court before which the proceedings
have been brought is satisfied that any controlled substance
that is the subject of proceedings before the court is no
longer required by that court or any other court, the court
(a) shall
(i) where it is satisfied that the person from whom the
substance was seized came into possession of the substance
in accordance with the regulations and continued to deal
with it in accordance with the regulations, order that the
substance be returned to the person, or
(ii) where it is satisfied that possession of the substance
by the person from whom it was seized is unlawful and the
person who is lawfully entitled to its possession is known,
order that the substance be returned to the person who is
the lawful owner or is lawfully entitled to its possession;
and
(b) may, where it is not satisfied that the substance should
be returned pursuant to subparagraph (i) and (ii) or where
possession of the substance by the person from whom it was
seized is unlawful and the person who is the lawful owner or
is lawfully entitled to its possession is not known, order
that the substance be forfeited to Her Majesty to be
disposed of or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the
regulations or, if there are no applicable regulations, in
such manner as the Minister directs.

JCT: Good. They need a court order to dispose of it.

43. Certainly the first portion of the section is met. The
cannabis marijuana is no longer required for court purposes
since the charges were stayed.

JCT: Actually, since they've arrogated to themselves the
right to charge him again by staying the charges instead of
withdrawing them, they do have to keep the evidence around.

44. That stated, ss. 27(a)(i) of the CDSA provides that a
substance shall be returned "where [the Court] is satisfied
that the person from whom the substance was seized came into
possession of the substance in accordance with the
regulations.." (emphasis added)

45. On July 24, 2006, the Applicant did not come into
possession of the marijuana in accordance with the
regulations. His personal production licence issued by
Health Canada was not issued until January 2007.

JCT: But he had medical need at the time that was admitted
too late to help to help then but can now.

46. Subsection 27 (a)(ii) of the CDSA does not capture the
Applicant's situation. The Respondent submits that this
subsection is necessary to protect those individuals who can
legally possess a drug (for instance, a bottle of
prescription morphine), but then have the pills stolen by a
third party, who was later found in possession of the bottle
of prescription pills. Subsection 27 (a)(ii) is simply not
applicable to the Applicant's circumstances.

JCT: But the claim to the pills after 60 days if not
disposed of would be just as valid as it is now.

R. v. Seegobin (September 26, 2005)

47. The Applicant provides that sentencing decision of His
Honour Justice Selkirk as support for his argument that
there is a "court-granted Hitzig exemption".

48. The Respondent submits that Justice Selkirk's decision
is useful only to cast insight as to the reasons behind the
conditional discharge imposed for cultivation of cannabis.

49. If anything, the fact that a conviction was entered and
a sentence imposed reinforces the argument that there is no
such thing as a "court-granted Hitzig exemption."

JCT: Selkirk didn't know about Hitzig "be sick" exemptions
at the time but does establish he knew of Rudy's medical
need.

The Order in R. v. Derek Francisco

50. The Respondent submits that without knowing the facts of
the case (through proper foundation such as official
transcripts), no weight should be placed upon the Order of
the Ontario Court of Justice (Central East Region), made
August 21, 2006.

JCT: Except that being proven sick at the time of the
offence by receipt of a Health Canada Exemption seems to
prove that there was medical need at the of the offence to
get his equipment and herb back. Rudy got his equipment and
now it only remains to get his medicine back.

CONCLUSION

It is the Respondent's submission that:

1) There is no such thing as a "court-granted Hitzig
exemption":  barring the issuance of a valid licence or
authorization to possess granted under the MMARs, possession
of cannabis marijuana remains a criminal offence.  On July
24, 2006, the Applicant was not legally able to possess
cannabis marijuana.

JCT: Valid medical need was all the exemption he needed for
his rights to be violated.

2) The Applicant has failed to:  a) bring the Application
within 60 days of seizure as per requirements of ss. 24 of
the CDSA

JCT: As long as it's not been disposed of, justice can be
done should legal ownership now be established. Because they
can't destroy anymore, after application, without a court
order.

3) The Respondent submits that given these failings, this
Court is without jurisdiction to issue the Order requested
by the Applicant. As such, the Respondent requests that the
Application be denied.

PART III- ORDER REQUESTED

The Respondent requests the following relief:
a) An order dismissing the Applicant's application for
return of a controlled substance; and
b) Such other relief as this Honourable Court determines to
be just.
Dated at Ottawa this 14th day of June, 2007
James Bocking
Of Counsel for the Respondent,
Attorney General of Canada

JCT: Rudy's claim will be heard in Ottawa on Aug. 17, 2003.


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

The Ottawa Sun Front page
"Stirring the pot"
He's legally growing marijuana to ease his crippling pain.
She's so disgusted by the stench she's put her house up for
sale. Nobody cares. There's not a single inspector to police
the 557 legal grow-ops registered in Ontario.
http://www.ottawasun.com/FrontPage/2007/07/22/4358535.html

Story:
http://www.ottawasun.com/News/OttawaAndRegion/2007/07/22/4358811-sun.html

Sun, July 22, 2007
Medicinal pot battle hits home
Neighbour raises stink over rowhouse grow op
By KENNETH JACKSON, SUN MEDIA

KJ: Rudy Seegobin displays the legal grow op in his Carleton
Place rowhouse, where he cultivates plants to ease the pain
of Crohn's disease, a twisted spinal cord and severe
arthritis.
yahoogroups.com/group/medpot/files/rudysunc.jpg*****
(A.D. Wilson/SUN)

Mom's a certified biologist working at a pharmaceutical
company. Pop's a stay-at-home dad. They have three beautiful
boys, aged 7, 2 and 10 months. Together they live a normal,
happy life. Everything is on the up and up at their Carleton
Place rowhouse, except dad's got a secret he's hiding in the
basement. His marijuana grow op is only a few weeks from
harvest.
He doesn't grow the drug to make money. It's for pain
relief. Rudy Seegobin is licensed by Health Canada to grow
his own pot for medicinal reasons. Seegobin, 41, suffers
from Crohn's disease, a twisted spinal cord and severe
arthritis. He grows the pot to ease the pain. The only
problem is his house is adjoined to another and the
neighbour claims the smell of marijuana permeates through
the walls.

NO INSPECTORS
Tammy Rutledge says she was forced to move and put her
rowhouse up for sale. Rutledge, 42, tried to get Seegobin's
licence revoked. Then she thought maybe someone from Health
Canada could inspect the operation. Not likely. Health
Canada doesn't have inspectors in Ontario. If the federal
agency did, its inspectors would have seen that Seegobin
lines two small rooms in his basement with white tarp, has a
ventilation system and grows a small number of plants. He's
allowed up to 73. Inspectors would have also discovered that
Seegobin controls his humidity, which experts say creates
mould. Meters show he keeps it below 30%. The recommended
level is 40-50%. "Everything is safe, secure and done up to
code," he said. "I wouldn't do anything that would put my
family in harm or anyone else. Look around, there's no mould
anywhere."
Rutledge says she was worried about the health of her ailing
mother she takes care of, due to mould and mildew. "I don't
have mould or mildew problems (on my side) but I am worried
that there could be in the future or maybe it's in the walls
and I can't see it," says Rutledge. She called her insurance
company to see if she's covered in case Seegobin's grow op
does create mould. "If it was to happen, they said I
wouldn't be covered."

JCT: Too bad that her fear which is based on ignorance has
to be handled rather than handling her ignorance.

KJ: Rutledge put her house on the market in May, shortly
after losing her daycare business. One of the children had
respiratory problems and difficulty breathing properly,
Rutledge alleges, because of the smell.

JCT: Her diagnosis without proof, just solid ignorance.

KJ: "The mother was quite concerned and stopped bringing her
child. She was protecting her child and I would have done
the same thing," Rutledge says. "The stench is that strong."
That's during the last few weeks of growth and even Seegobin
admits that for that short period of time, it does get
smelly.

JCT: The stench of fresh greenery. I think it smells great.
What would she prefer smelling rather than mother nature.
Her neighbor's garbage bin?

KJ: Despite all of this, Rutledge respects why Seegobin
needs the marijuana, but wonders if anyone should be allowed
to operate a grow op in a rowhouse.

JCT: Growing plants inside a house, unheard of.

KJ: "We're both victims in this. I feel for Mr. Seegobin. I
know he's in a lot of pain. I just wanted him to get rid of
the grow op and find other methods."

JCT: She just wants him to get rid of his medicine and find
other now-non-existing methods. His medicine bothers her.

KJ: Rutledge called Health Canada. "I asked them isn't there
somebody who can come and check if it's being filtered
right." But there isn't an inspector in Ontario (or
Alberta).

JCT: Rather than hire experts to check the air quality if
she's worried, she wants her complaining to result in
someone else hiring experts to allay her baseless
complaints.

KJ: POLICE RAID
Seegobin would open his door to an inspector, especially
after what he's been through over the last year. Nearly a
year ago, on July 27, he was arrested after police kicked in
his front door and charged him with running an illegal grow
op. Three days earlier he was charged after a cop pulled him
over and found 71 grams of pot in his vehicle. He didn't
have a medicinal licence then and was thrown in jail for
four days.

KJ: He fought the charges and less than six months later
everything was dropped. Police returned his growing
equipment and other items. In January, Seegobin got a
licence to grow marijuana, legally.

JCT: Actually, he got a licence then charges dropped. Too
bad they didn't go into why his charges and Derek
Francisco's charges were dropped after they got their
exemptions while Pierre Drouin's same charge was not.

KJ: Besides the smell during the last three weeks of a
growth cycle, he says there shouldn't be a problem. He feels
for Rutledge but without the marijuana he can barely stand
up from the pain crippling his body. "I'm not doing anything
wrong," he says. "I'd be more than happy to let anyone come
in and see." Andrew Roche, with Ottawa Public Health,
advises Rutledge to hire experts to check the air quality,
which she hasn't done. "I would certainly get clearance from
an indoor air professional," says Roche.

JCT: She'd rather bitch until someone else does it for her.

KJ: Seegobin says the Carleton Place Fire Department has
checked his grow op after Rutledge called about the smell
earlier this year. "They came in and inspected it. They said
there was nothing wrong with it," he says. Seegobin wonders
if a Health Canada inspector had been in place, then
Rutledge wouldn't have left her home in fear and they'd both
be enjoying a glass of iced tea on the back porch, instead
of arguing about who is right.

JCT: They need someone on call to handle people ignorant of
the truth and scared by the hysterical mould stories. 90% of
homes already have mould and so 90% of grow-ops do too. Real
scary.

Still, without her, there would be no story and if they
think Rudy is stirring the pot now, wait until he's in the
fight for the return of his marijuana seized by the cop in
the first bust. We got the Crown's response to his Section
24 application and I'll publish it next.


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

JCT: Chief Justice McLachlin and Justices Charron and
Rothstein denied all five of our applications for leave to
appeal. Information on the steps can be found at:

http://cases-dossiers.scc-csc.gc.ca/information/cms/docket_e.asp?32009
http://cases-dossiers.scc-csc.gc.ca/information/cms/docket_e.asp?32010
http://cases-dossiers.scc-csc.gc.ca/information/cms/docket_e.asp?32011
http://cases-dossiers.scc-csc.gc.ca/information/cms/docket_e.asp?32012
http://cases-dossiers.scc-csc.gc.ca/information/cms/docket_e.asp?32013

From each page, you can then click to a case summary:

32009 Pierre Drouin v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)
(Criminal) (By Leave)
http://cases-dossiers.scc-csc.gc.ca/information/cms/case-summary_e.asp?32009

SCC: Criminal law - Narcotic control - Whether section 7(1)
of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c.
19, is still an offence known to law?

The Applicant was charged with production of marihuana
contrary to section 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, possession for the purpose
of trafficking marihuana contrary to section 5(2) of the
CDSA and five counts of possessing a prohibited weapon
contrary to the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46.
After being committed to stand trial, but before his trial
in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Applicant
brought an application for an order prohibiting prosecution
of the count under section 7(1) as it was his position that
it was no longer an offence known to law because Parliament
had not re-enacted the offence since a judge of the Alberta
Queen's Bench struck it down in R. v. Krieger (2000), 225
D.L.R. (4th) 164.

JCT: Wrong, it was struck since the Alberta Court of Appeal
supported Justice Acton striking it down.

SCC: Justice Nadeau dismissed his application, concluding
that there was a suspension of the order of the declaration
of invalidity

JCT: I guess the Supreme Court justices don't agree that the
O'Leary stay granted to the Appellant pending appeal is
gone.

SCC: and that declaration was since remedied by the
enactment of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations
(MMARs). The Court of Appeal agreed.

JCT: If the MMARs worked and the O'Leary stay pending appeal
survived the appeal. We'll see.

SCC: 32010 Real Martin v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)
(Criminal) (By Leave)
//cases-dossiers.scc-csc.gc.ca/information/cms/case-summary_e.asp?32010

JCT: Same for Real.

SCC: 32011 John C. Turmel v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)
(Criminal) (By Leave)
//cases-dossiers.scc-csc.gc.ca/information/cms/case-summary_e.asp?32011

Criminal law - Narcotic control  Criminal procedure -
Whether section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances
Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, is still an offence known to law?
Whether the Court of Appeal has the discretion as to when it
will convene a five-judge panel to reconsider one of its
earlier decisions?

The Applicant was charged with possession of marihuana for
the purpose of trafficking contrary to section 5(2) of the
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19. He
was later convicted by a judge sitting alone in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice.

JCT: Notice that they put the conviction that happened last
earlier than other elements of the story.

SCC: The Applicant admitted the facts but advanced the
proposition that he was not charged with an offence known to
law. His appeal from conviction to the Court of Appeal for
Ontario was dismissed. The question remains whether section
5(2) is an offence known to law. The question also remains
whether the Court of Appeal has the discretion as to when it
will convene a five-judge panel to reconsider one of its
earlier decisions.

JCT: The questions remain but were not answered.

http://cases-dossiers.scc-csc.gc.ca/information/cms/case-summary_e.asp?32012
SCC: 32012 John C. Turmel v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)
(Criminal) (By Leave)

Criminal procedure - Whether the Crown has the discretion to
decide on what charges to proceed? - Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, s. 5(2).

The Applicant was charged with possession of marihuana for
the purpose of trafficking contrary to section 5(2) of the
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19. He
was later convicted by a judge sitting alone in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice. The Applicant admitted the facts
but advanced the proposition that he was not charged with an
offence known to law.

JCT: Remember how the Crown kept confusing the application
for prohibition with the application for a jury trial? Well,
the Supreme Court accepted that error too. The novel
proposition has nothing to do with this appeal. Only being
charged with less than 3Kg when I had more is involved.

SCC: His appeal from conviction to the Court of Appeal for
Ontario was dismissed.

JCT: This part was involved in appeal 32013 and again has
nothing to do with a false fact on the face of the
indictment.

SCC: The question remains whether the Crown has the
discretion to decide on what charges to proceed.

JCT: Yes, the question of whether the Crown can lie on the
indictment remains to be answered.

SCC: 32013 John C. Turmel v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)
(Criminal) (By Leave)

//cases-dossiers.scc-csc.gc.ca/information/cms/case_summary_e.asp?32013

Criminal law - Narcotic control - Criminal procedure -
Whether section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances
Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, is still an offence known to law?

JCT: No, that was in the appeal for prohibition of
prosecution #32011 with Pierre Drouin and Real Martin.

SCC: Whether the trial judge was correct in refusing to
allow the Applicant to raise certain defences after he was
convicted?

JCT: No, whether he was correct in convicting me before I
had the chance to present a defence.

SCC: The Applicant was charged with possession of marihuana
for the purpose of trafficking contrary to section 5(2) of
the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19.
He was later convicted by a judge sitting alone in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The Applicant admitted
the facts but advanced the proposition that he was not
charged with an offence known to law. His appeal from
conviction to the Court of Appeal for Ontario was dismissed.
The question remains whether the Crown has the discretion to
decide on what charges to proceed.

JCT: No, the discretion issue was raised in appeal 32012,
not this 32013 here. Seems even the Supreme Court can't keep
the issues apart.

SCC: The question also remains whether the trial judge was
correct in refusing to allow the Applicant to raise certain
defences after he was convicted.

JCT: No, whether it was right to convict me after skipping
the stages of defence where I could present those argument.
Even the Supreme Court has to misrepresent what happened!
Anyway, though the rulings were simply issued by the court
registrar, it seems Canadian Press noticed the end of their
2003 story and did a story which got picked up pretty well
all around the country. I googled for news and found:

(CPimages/Jonathan Hayward)
CP: John Turmel is arrested on Parliament Hill in 2003, for
allegedly having three kilograms of marijuana.

JCT: This was the picture of me at the door of the House of
Commons being taken away by the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police officers with my seven 1-pound bags of marijuana.

The Brandon Sun (MB)
Thursday, July 12th, 2007
High Court denies leave to appeal by man convicted of
marijuana trafficking
Canadian Press

OTTAWA (CP) - John Turmel has lost another one. The Supreme
Court of Canada has dismissed an application for leave to
appeal a marijuana trafficking conviction by the Guinness
record holder for most elections contested and lost.

As is its usual practice, the high court did not give
reasons for its decision in the case of Turmel, who's lost
60 elections running on a pro-marijuana platform.

JCT: Sad to think that they link me to my Number Two
political platform. I really didn't run in 60 elections to
abolish marijuana prohibition. I ran in 65 elections to
abolish interest rate debt slavery.

CP: In 2003, Turmel dared the Crown to prosecute him for
carrying three kilograms of marijuana to Parliament Hill and
lighting a joint in protest of what he said were unjust and
illegal pot-smoking arrests.

JCT: Illegal arrests because the law was dead. And just 5
months later, the Hitzig Court of Appeal admitted the law
was dead before fixing it and bringing it back to life.

CP: He failed in his bid to overturn the trafficking
conviction but he was denied by the Ontario Court of Appeal,
which held that protection under the law only extended as
far as possession.

JCT: Because cultivation is gone too via Krieger, I went
back saying that last time I lost when only possession was
invalid, though not yet known by the judiciary, only me, and
now I'm back with possession and cultivation both being
invalidated and not reflected in the Criminal Code.

CP: Turmel had asked for an absolute discharge to prevent a
criminal record that might interfere with international
travel and his ambition to one day run for "prime minister
of the planet."

JCT: On the promise to get cops out of gambling, sex, drugs
and rock & roll and interest-free charge cards at the Bank
of Canada that can be paid off with time at work. Call that
heaven.

turmel - Google News
CJOB, Canada - 12 Jul 2007
Canada East, Canada - 12 Jul 2007
940 News, Canada - 12 Jul 2007
570 News, Canada - 12 Jul 2007
The Chronicle Journal, Canada - 12 Jul 2007
CJAD, Canada - 12 Jul 2007
Winnipeg Free Press, Canada - 12 Jul 2007
Canoe.ca, Canada - 12 Jul 2007
The Chronicle West End Edition, Canada - 12 Jul 2007
Westmount Examiner,  Canada - 12 Jul 2007
West Island Chronicle, Canada - 12 Jul 2007
Brandon Sun,  Canada - 12 Jul 2007

JCT: Of course, there were a lot more important issues.
Should the Crown have erased the convictions of Canadians
prosecuted while the law was invalid instead of covering it
up? The Supreme Court were told about and have just now
helped the cover up of the Parker bogus convictions Scandal.

Is a statute that has been struck down repealed pursuant to
Section 2(2) of the Interpretation Act or merely absent
until fixed pursuant to the Hitzig decision? A big one.

They were told about the continued prosecutions despite the
Krieger ruling out of their court and did nothing,
essentially helping cover up the Krieger scandal. All these
errors and injustices were brought to the attention of three
of Canada's top nine judges and they didn't see anything
important enough in the biggest judicial snafus in Canadian
history to let the issues be aired.

How about when the Crown keeps arguing that when a federal
penal statute is struck down as unconstitutional in one
province, it has to be be struck down in every other
province? No answer there.

Luckily, I do have one last kick the can. Section 73 of the
Supreme Court of Canada Rules say that a motion can still be
filed for "reconsideration" for "exceedingly rare
circumstances in the case that warrant consideration by the
Court... within 30 days after the judgment on the
application for leave to appeal."

So what "exceedingly rare circumstances may warrant
consideration by the Court... within 30 days after the
judgment on the application for leave to appeal?"

How about what happened on the very next day. Yes, on
Thursday July 12 2007, the Supreme Court dismissed my
applications based on the fact Parliament must pass new
legislation to make the prohibitions valid again, and on
Friday July 13 2007, from the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation:

>>Judge rules Canada's pot possession laws unconstitutional
Last Updated: Friday, July 13, 2007 | 8:46 PM ET CBC News

CBC: A Toronto judge has ruled that Canada's pot possession
laws are unconstitutional after a man argued the country's
medicinal marijuana regulations are flawed. Lawyer Brian
McAllister says the potential ramifications of a ruling that
Canada's pot possession laws are unconstitutional are
'pretty big.' (CBC)

JCT: Remember, McAllister was first to convince Windsor
Justice Phillips and Justice Rogin that Section 2(2) of the
Interpretation Act applied when the Terry Parker Day took
effect so that the marijuana prohibition on possession had
been repealed. Though his reason for why the Parker
invalidation had taken effect, that it had to be enacted in
law, not in policy, was eventually thrown out, the fact it
didn't work to safety Parker on time won, it did establish
that a statute that has been struck down is to be deemed
repealed. And McAllister was first to bring to our attention
that the Supreme Court of Canada had noted that the Section
7 cultivation prohibition had been struck down in Krieger!
And then he never used the ace he had discovered. I sure
have.

CBC: The 29-year-old Toronto resident had been charged with
possession of about 3.5 grams or roughly $45 dollars worth
of marijuana. The man has no medical issues and doesn't want
a medical exemption to smoke marijuana. In 2001, Health
Canada implemented the Marijuana Medical Access Regulations,
which allow access to marijuana to people who are suffering
from grave and debilitating illnesses.
In court, the man argued that the federal government only
made it policy to provide marijuana to those who need it,
but never made it an actual law. Because of that, he argued,
all possession laws, whether medicinal or not, should be
quashed. The judge agreed and dismissed the charges.
"The government told the public not to worry about access to
marijuana," said Judge Howard Borenstein. "They have a
policy but not law. In my view that is unconstitutional."

JCT: They didn't enact the exemption in legislation?
Actually, they didn't make it a policy to provide marijuana,
such policy needing to be enacted into law, they made it a
policy to exempt from the already legislated prohibition.
Had the MMARs worked to successfully provide medical access,
would a challenge to the prohibition stand up? "Everything's
working fine but the prohibition should be invalidated
because what works fine wasn't enacted in the right place?"
No, the issue fatal to the legislated prohibition is whether
it deprives some Canadians of needed access, not whether it
was legislated right. It's the Windsor technicality all
over again.

CBC: Defence lawyer Brian McAllister, who represented the
man, said the ramifications of the ruling have potential to
be "pretty big." "Obviously, there's thousands of people
that get charged with this offence every year," he said.

JCT: So if the law's still dead affects the thousands every
year is pretty big, then when we told the Supreme Court our
challenges on the the law still being dead were important,
it sure proves our point.

CBC: McAllister said Ontario residents charged with
possessing marijuana now have a new defence. "That's
probably why the government will likely appeal the
decision," he said.

JCT: A new, weaker, defence than that the law is still dead
because the Hitzig Court couldn't bring it back to life
after it was struck down.

CBC: Borenstein has given prosecutors two weeks before he
makes his ruling official.

JCT: Good, then I'll have two weeks to use it in our Motions
for Reconsideration of our appeals that the cultivation and
possession prohibitions are still invalidated as the
"exceedingly rare circumstance in the case that warrants
consideration by the Court... within 30 days after the
judgment on the application for leave to appeal."

CBC: Prosecutors told CBC News they want a speedy appeal to
overturn the decision."

JCT: If the issue of Parliamentary legislation is of
national importance when raised at the bottom, it should
have been of national importance when raised at the top.

CBC: For the time being, nothing changes," Toronto police
spokesman Mark Pugash said about how the force deals with
marijuana possession. "We have to wait and see what happens
with the process through the courts."

JCT: Are they going to keep busting now that a new judge has
told them it's back to their same old problem. They're going
to have to call on Alan Young to get the Court to re-
validate the prohibition against us once again like his
Hitzig case brought the prohibition back to life on the same
day Parker found out it had been dead since Terry Parker
Day.

Now I've got to send a fax to Judge Clement in Terry
Parker's Section 24 claim for the pot seized by Canada Post.
He's supposed to hand down his decision on the 26th and now
that a new judge is going to challenge the Hitzig
resurrection, it should certainly bolster Terry's case.

Remember, even if the reason for why the law remains
unconstitutional is bogus, the effect is explained for when
the reason isn't bogus, like "it didn't work on time and it
became repealed." Much good can come out of it but just like
the JP argument which eventually lost though taking credit
for the many withdrawn charges won by Terry Parker's "it
didn't work" argument, this could be just another straw
horse started to take the credit for correcting the Krieger
scandal. That's a lot of bogus convictions they're going to
have to admit to right after the Supreme Court helped cover
the Parker Scandal up! Har har har har.

What incredible luck. After the Supreme Court's failure to
see the national importance of the bogus convictions issue,
bogus convictions since 2003 is starting to make national
news on the very next day! And I'll get the judge's decision
in time to shove it in their faces in my motion for
reconsideration. Har har har har nyuk nyuk nyuk nyuk nyuk.


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

JCT: Wow, fourteen years ago today was the biggest gaming
house raid in history on the 28-table Casino Turmel in
Ottawa.

See: http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/gambler.htm


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

>Re: TURMEL: #2 Daniel Reeves says interest is simple but
>Posted by: "Daniel Reeves" dreeves@... pegarmpaul
>Date: Thu Jul 5, 2007 11:17 am ((PDT))

DR: Cool, I'm in. I, Daniel Reeves, bet $100 that in a 2-
person economy there exists a sequence of transactions
whereby I borrow 10 tokens and repay 11, with no recourse to
outside money. Graeme, can I paypal you the escrow money?

JCT: Before I paypal my bet, recall your own solution I'm
betting against:

Day 1: Lender gives me 10 tokens. Hurray tokens!
Day 2: I pay back the first 5 tokens.
Day 3: I do the lender's dishes, for which she pays me one token.
Day 4: I pay back another 5 tokens.
Day 5: Lo! I still have a token!  I pay it to the lender.
10 loaned, 11 repaid.

DR: I was half kidding about the meta-bet but I suppose if
you were willing to concede the primary bet to make $100
profit, I'd consider it worth it. :) Assuming you really
believed you lost the primary bet!

JCT: Just pointing out a middle on the bet that could be
taken if the issue was not so important.

DR: But really, I think we should just to the salient one.
Just that I predict it will be impossible to resolve because
neither of us will concede.

JCT: We can use the voting mechanism to let all ijccr
subscribers do an open vote.

DR: We're going to get hung up on definitions and implicit
assumptions (both of us, I'm not just accusing you of this).

JCT: I'm ready to tackle the solution you posited above.

DR: Also, John, reading your detailed responses on this
topic I can see you're completely sincere and want to
improve the world. We just disagree on specifics.

JCT: Not specifics, "specific." Interest "i" is the sole
malfunction in the 1/(s-i) bank accounts. Make i=0% is the
sole specific solution to making money work like chips do.

DR: I love the friendly wager idea and just want to
emphasize the friendly part.

JCT: I have no reason for spite.

DR: One last question for John: what is "the software for
Our Father's Heaven"? Daniel Reeves

JCT: It is the software where your anti-social debts are
forgiven as you forgive the anti-social credits owed to you
by others and your social credits are good world-wide.
An interest-free UNILETS world-wide timebank. Almost here.



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

JCT: The Supreme Court of Canada has announced that they
will be handing down the decisions on Big Give medpot
appeals. Every important issue is being raised and it puts
three more judges on the "bad guy" hook if they refuse.

>From: sccpress@...
>Date: Jul 9, 2007 1:50 PM
>Subject: Judgments to be rendered in Leave Applications

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
JUDGMENTS TO BE RENDERED IN LEAVE APPLICATIONS

OTTAWA, 2007-07-09. THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA ANNOUNCED
TODAY THAT JUDGMENT IN THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE
TO APPEAL WILL BE DELIVERED AT 9:45  A.M. EDT ON THURSDAY,
JULY 12, 2007. THIS LIST IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
FROM: SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (613) 995-4330

Note for subscribers:
The summaries of the cases are available at
http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca:
Click on Cases and on SCC Case Information,
type in the Case Number and press Search.
Click on the Case Number on the Search Result screen, and
when the docket screen appears, click on "Summary" which
will appear in the left column. Alternatively, click on
scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/news_release/2007/07-07-09.2a/07-07-09.2a.html

http://cases-dossiers.scc-csc.gc.ca/information/cms/docket_e.asp?32009
http://cases-dossiers.scc-csc.gc.ca/information/cms/docket_e.asp?32010
http://cases-dossiers.scc-csc.gc.ca/information/cms/docket_e.asp?32011
http://cases-dossiers.scc-csc.gc.ca/information/cms/docket_e.asp?32012
http://cases-dossiers.scc-csc.gc.ca/information/cms/docket_e.asp?32013

JCT: I guess they'll be announcing the results at their
web page. If the issues get in, then the whole stinking mess
will get aired. If they don't let them in, then we'll just
keep flooding the courts with Appellants claiming the
Krieger invalidation until someone explains why what the
court wrote down isn't true.


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

>Re: TURMEL: Daniel Reeves says interest is simple but can't
>Posted by: "Graeme Taylor" telergy@...
>Date: Wed Jul 4, 2007 12:27 am ((PDT))

GT: How can 10 pay 11? When a Fractional Reserve loan is
created, the new money created "out of thin air" is
gradually written off again, until the principle is repaid.
But there is extra money needed to pay for the interest,
which is likewise created "out of thin air", or some might
say, by legal contract.

JCT: The money for the interest is not created, that's my
beef. Sure, the debt for the interest is added to the debt
for the money principle but you can't say the interest is
"created out of thin air" like the chips are created out of
thin air.

GT: "We the proles" have to scramble around to get this
additional money, whether it be for the principal or the
interest. If no new FR money was to be created, (and it
probably needs to be in every country), and "we the proles"
are still expected to pay out our existing FR loans, it
would hit the fan. But banks keep lending money. Maybe them
"economists" decide to raise interest rates. There are
winners, and there are losers. The winners are a small few
with licences to make manifest "legal tender". The losers
are "we the proles".
Hence the notion of CCs with zero or minus interest.

JCT: Minus interest causes unnecessary instability.

It is just possible that John and Daniel are both correct.

JCT: No, we can't both be correct. Either usury is payable
or it's not. It can be both. Daniel says it can be paid, I
say it can't.

One is writing about "loans" and one is writing about
"money". cheers Graeme Taylor.

JCT: No, I'm saying money is tokens to facilitate exchange,
Daniel's saying money is a "way" to facilitate exchange.

>Re: TURMEL: Daniel Reeves says interest is simple but can't
>by: "new_economics" new_economics@... new_economics
>Date: Wed Jul 4, 2007 10:01 am ((PDT))

"JCT: Presuming you can pay off both the principle
and the interest when you only got the principle is,
fundamentally, as simple as that. Har har har har."

NE: Please, the word is spelled p_r_i_n_c_i_p_A_L
when referring to the principal of a loan.

JCT: Wow, considering how many "Principal + Interest"
equations I've written, I never thought I'd make that
blooper again.

NE: But you, meaning the economy as a whole, have both
the principal plus the interest required to repay the
loan, because the lenders are spending the interest
they are earning back into the economy, just as any
recipient of income is spending his income. There is
absolutely no difference whatsoever.

JCT: The economy which borrowed only the Principal (P) into
circulation has the principal and interest (P+I) required to
pay the loan! It can be paid because the lenders are
spending it back into the economy is the point
Ryan\Kline\Hogbreath kept trying to make but when asked to
produce a payment schedule showing how it could be done in a
1-person loan, could not. The impossibility of the usury
just happens to be hidden within the "whole economy" New
Economy wants us to look at. So if bank debt is payable, why
are there so many foreclosures? "Inefficiency" is all those
who see only the whole can answer. That it is impossible for
mankind to run money efficiently enough so that all the
suffering going on around via exponential debt doesn't have
to be suffered.
So the point is made that the bankers have it within their
power to let the borrowers live, just by granting new
credits. Yes. It's true. It lets borrowers continue, but in
greater debt. Yes, bankers can let those enterprises live. I
never said they didn't have that power of life over
borrowers.
But the issue isn't that bankers can forestall the death in
the deathgamble by extending new credits and it's all hidden
within the "whole economy." New credits are coming in is all
that needs to be chanted, not whether it's enough to solve
the problem.
So, yes, the bankers have the power to create new credits to
let corporations live. But that's my beef. It also gives
them the power to let some corporations die. Then be sold
off at auction to those corporations they let live. It's the
power of life and death over industrial activity and it look
at what has resulted from leaving that power in private
hands.
Megadeaths due to the industrial inefficiency of the
Rothschild family, the Rockefeller family. Those poor rich
bankers had control of what their banks would finance and
instead of financing a Heaven on Earth, those poor bankers
have been saddled with the Crime of the Twentieth Century.
The Rothschild family are pretty well responsible for the
mess they made of the Nineteenth century full of wars and
genocides. Not a record to be proud of. But they shouldn't
have been left in control of the life-and-death lever of
finance. If they screwed up the planet, some other rich
family would have. But I bet that when the software for Our
Father's Heaven is installed, a lot of the Rothschilds and
Rockefellers will want to want to change their names. How
many "Hitlers" have you seen in the phone book from the past
century? Want to bet how many Rothschilds you'll find in the
phone book after the next century.
So yes, the Rothschild and Rockefellers had it in their
power to allow the system to reach steady state "no death"
in their death-gamble. But they would have sure had to spend
a lot and I just don't see 1% of families being able to
spend the 90% of the money they have. Sure, Rockefeller
would love to spend his billion in interest back but there's
just so much he can use.

My point is that the impossibility inherent in the death-
gamble contract cannot be forestalled in a 1-man game. Sure,
in the "whole economy," others can lose the principal they
brought into the game so the rest can pay their principal
and the interest but it takes losers for others to survive.
Sure, bankers can create new credits to let the losers
survive a little longer but eventually, it can't be
sustained. That's why I offer my billion to one odds, $1000
Canadian to 1 Turkish Lira, the other way around.
I don't bet that interest kills so opponents can argue it
doesn't necessarily kill when bankers can let you live. I
bet that "no interest does not kill" so opponents can argue
that "no interest does kill too." It doesn't. So establish a
no interest system and you've gotten rid of the death that
no longer needs to be averted by mercy from your banker.

So New Economy says that because bankers spend their
interest back, it solves the problem. And of course, I bet
Ryan/Kline and anyone else to provide a payment schedule for
1000 coins loaned to me on my island that left me debt-free
and no one could. They always ran up against the last cycle
where there's not enough for the last interest payment.

NE: because the lenders are spending the interest they are
earning back into the economy, just as any recipient of
income is spending his income. There is absolutely no
difference whatsoever.

JCT: No difference between lender spending the interest as a
worker spending his income? The worker gets and spends his
income independent of the loan cycle, the banker receives
and spends his interest income at the end of and after the
loan cycle.

NE: The individual borrower must earn the amount equivalent
to the interest plus the principal from the economy as a
whole in order to fully amortize his loan.

JCT: All borrowers compete, not just "the individual
borrower must earn the amount equivalent to the interest
plus the principal from the economy as a whole in order to
fully amortize his loan." But all borrowers, like the one
borrower, only borrowed the principal into circulation at
the time of the loan. Forget the over-all picture, the over-
all problem of the group of borrowers who all left the pump
house with P gallons of liquidity in order to compete in the
economic pool and all must come back to the pumphouse bank
with P+I to amortize their death-gamble mort-gages.
Sure, forget the big picture, look only at one individual
and then rely on the big picture to provide enough to
satisfy the debt. Har har har.

NE: Too many har har hars here from an apparent ignoramus,
John. Myro

JCT: Such temerity to call the Professor on on banking
systems engineering an "ignoramus" on the basis of a
spelling blooper. Until you can put your money where your
mouth is and provide a payment schedule in coins or deal
with the the over-all problem of all borrowers and the
pumphouse, you better keep your wrong opinions to yourself.
You're connected with the New Economics Foundation?

>Re: TURMEL: Daniel Reeves says interest is simple but can't
>by: "Daniel Reeves" dreeves@... pegarmpaul
>Date: Wed Jul 4, 2007 11:23 pm ((PDT))

DR: I think Myro just won John's bet.  To spell it out:

Day 1: Lender gives me 10 tokens. Hurray tokens!
Day 2: I pay back the first 5 tokens.
Day 3: I do the lender's dishes, for which she pays me one
token.
Day 4: I pay back another 5 tokens.
Day 5: Lo! I still have a token! I pay it to the lender.
10 loaned, 11 repaid.
(Meta-bet: $200 says John won't pay up. :)

JCT: Meta-bet I won't pay up before taking my $100US bet on
the issue? I could take the bet, admit I'm wrong, send the
$100 for being wrong about usury, and collect the $200
for being right about paying my gambling debts.
Catching a middle, (where you can't lose) is always a
tempting offer so I'll take that bet.
But first, Daniel has to say
"I bet $100 that I've proven I can borrow 10 and repay 11."

Then we'll both drop our bets in the mail to the only other
person on this list to comment so far, Graeme Taylor, and
when he has both our bets, I will try to take your proof
apart. Graeme, will you hold our bets?

DR: Possible objection to my timeline: the lender may refuse
the dishes deal on day 3.

JCT: No, let the lender be your mama who's trying to help
you. She just started a mail-order bank branch on your
island and you are her first and only customer. Mama really
wants you to be able to pay back both the 10 you got in
principal from her new ATM as well as the 11th you didn't
get for the interest. She'll help you in any way she can
because, 2000 years ago, you'd be taken away as a slave for
your failure. So she really really does not want you to end
up enslaves and will do anything she can to help you pay
back 11 when the ATM only spit out 10.

DR: But then what's the point of lending me tokens if she's
not going to get anything out of it?  She gets to call me
her debt slave?  Great, what's that supposed to mean?  The
whole point of borrowing 10 tokens and promising to pay back
11 is because I believe I can earn that extra token.  If I
can't and I default then the joke's on the lender.  Or if I
put up collateral worth 11 tokens and the lender takes it,
then fine, loan repaid as agreed.

JCT: Like I said, your mama wants to help settle the mort-
gage death-gamble she got you into.


JCT: So, after Daniel proffered a bet that the TajProfessor
"Great Canadian Gambler" won't pay up now that he has
unveiled his proof to win that bet, what can I do before
taking on his supposed solution to the death-gamble dilemma
but flash the cash and expect to say "bye bye trash.

>Article #4453 (4454 is last):
>From: David Johnston <david@...>
>Newsgroups: alt.fan.john-turmel,can.politics,can.legal,
>alt.drugs,sci.econ,sci.engr,alt.conspiracy
>Subject: Re: TURMEL: Daniel Reeves says interest is simple
>Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 04:02:35 GMT

On 4 Jul 2007 (John Turmel) wrote:

>So Daniel can't provide a simple 3- or 2-payment schedule
>to show how a person alone on his island can pay off all
>the coins owed, the principle and interest on his debt, but
>wants us to assume a solution.

DJ: The answer to the problem is to give the lender a
coconut.

JCT: Yes, it would be nice if you could pay your bank loan
with products too. But you can't. It takes only tokens. So
it's not an answer.

DJ: Thus you have paid the interest on the loan.

JCT: No, you paid something but not interest. Interest is
growth demanded on the original substance. This is why
moderate interest on cows that have babies is payable but 1%
usury on gold, paper, credits that has no babies is not.


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

>unpayability of usury/interest?
>Posted by: "Daniel Reeves" dreeves@... pegarmpaul
>Date: Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:56 pm ((PDT))

DR: I'm not taking John's bet below

JCT: Can't come up with a payment schedule to prove the
error of the unpayability of usury/interest?

DR: because it would lead to an endless argument over
definitions of terms like "new money"

JCT: He doesn't like rigorous definitions. So call them
"chips" or "tokens" if "money" or "coins" is too confusing.

DR: but I did want to chime in in hopes of clearing up a
misunderstanding about the payability of interest on a loan.

JCT: He can't come up with a payment schedule for coins to
prove the error of the unpayability of usury/interest but
he's found another way of proving it without any coins?

DR: A thought experiment that has helped me is to pretend
there is no money and just look at movement of wealth.

JCT: Reminds me of another famous thought experiment. An
chemist, engineer, economist were on an island with one can
of food but no can opener. The chemist suggested: "Let's put
bottom of the can in a local hot-spring hoping the chemicals
might weaken the metal and they could get at the food." "Too
long," said the engineer. "Let's use our glasses to focus
the sun's rays onto the can and the expansion of the
contents will break open the can and we can get at the
food." "Too long," said the economist. "Assume a can
opener."
So Daniel can't provide a simple 3- or 2-payment schedule to
show how a person alone on his island can pay off all the
coins owed, the principle and interest on his debt, but
wants us to assume a solution.

DR: Remember the distinction: wealth is the actual stuff we
want, money is just a way to transfer it.

JCT: A truck is a way to transfer it. Money doesn't transfer
stuff. It facilitates getting the truck but doesn't transfer
it. So, avoiding a simple spreadsheet because he doesn't
want to be pinned down on definitions, Daniel now starts off
with a description of what money helps do, not what it is.
He wants to define the thing as its function.

DR: So the question "how can I repay a loan with interest;
where does the extra money come from?"

JCT: First you have to settle who gets to issue the tokens.
Oh right, to Daniel, money isn't a token, it's a way to do
something, an algorithm.

DR: becomes "how can someone give back more wealth than they
were loaned; where does the extra wealth come from?"

JCT: It's the difference between interest on cows and usury
on gold. Cows have babies, gold does not. To ask where the
extra cow comes from sounds far more stupid than where the
extra gold comes from? The whole issue is debt in a medium
which is kept in short supply. Presume enough, says Daniel.

DR: Well that's easy to answer.

JCT: The easy answer to the problem that can't be explained
using coins?

DR: The same place all wealth comes from: people make it.

JCT: If people make money, they go to jail.

DR: They build things, do work, cough up property.

JCT: That's how they get some but how they make it. Money is
not made by working. Alone on my island, how does building
things come up with the eleventh dollar in interest I owe to
add to the 10 in principle I got.

DR: Say you have a beautiful painting (= wealth) that I want
and I have nothing to offer you for it except the promise to
return it to you later. That's a big favor I'm asking you.
To keep things fair, I might offer you a small thing of my
own in return (say, doing your dishes). So there you have
it, I borrowed the painting and paid it back, plus interest
(doing your dishes). Everyone's happy. It really is,
fundamentally, as simple as that.

JCT: Presuming you can pay off both the principle and the
interest when you only got the principle is, fundamentally,
as simple as that. Har har har har. And yet it's so simple,
he can't actually build a simple payment schedule using
actual coins. He's got to transpose into his wealth analogy
because he can't do with real money.

DR: And, by the way, there's nothing magical or
mathematically insidious about compound interest either.

JCT: Sure there is. It's got Daniel convinced he can pay 11
when they only printed 10. He only had to presume it could
be done and within that context, it can be. Har har har.

DR: In fact, the concept is already implicit in this "extra
favor" conception of interest. Say our agreement is that
while I have possession of your painting I'll do your dishes
once a week. That's the agreement but now I ask you the
favor of letting me postpone my dishwashing this week and in
exchange I'll carve you a little wooden duck (or something).
Work that out with numbers and you have compound interest.
Note that interest only compounds if you shirk the payments.

JCT: So show me how I can repay the 10 coins you lent me and
your simple 11 coin in interest! Har har har har. Isn't it
funny that Ryan/Kline/Hogbreath argues that it's the
compound payments that can be juggled so the interest can be
paid because the impossibility is obvious with simple
interest though he could never provide a payment schedule to
prove I could repay 11 coins when he only lent me 10, and
now we have Daniel telling us that it's the compounding
that's the problem so he didn't even see the impossibility
staring him in the face that Ryan was trying to use
compounding to avoid. Har har har har.

DR: Compound interest is just simple interest applied
recursively to the missed payments which can be treated as
additional loans.

JCT: And he can't prove his point whether it's with compound
usury or simple usury. Har har har har. Daniel presumes to
challenge me on banking systems engineering is like Gilligan
presuming to challenge the Professor, a battle of
engineering wits with an unarmed man.


> JCT: The pseudo-socred lunatic who changes the subject..
> If you're alone on your island, your mortgage
> has no possible pay-off schedule.
> You said a $1000 loan amortized at 10% could be paid off
> if we're the only two on the island. I bet US$100 you
> can't provide a simple quarterly payment schedule without
> recourse to outside money.

JCT: The bet Daniel and the whole crew of nay-sayers can't
take. 1000 coins at 10% in any payment schedule they want.
Put your money where your mouth is, if you can't put up,
it's better to shut up and and seem ignorant of B.S.E.
rather than speak up and remove all doubt.


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

JCT: Ontario Provincial Court of Justice Judge Clements will
hand down a decision on Terry's claim for the return of the
medpot seized by Canada Post in Brampton tomorrow Thursday.

The judge gets to decide if Terry is no longer exempted or
not.

Terry raised:
1) His Pitt criminal jurisdiction exemption which the Hitzig
Court of Appeal (Justices Doherty, Goudge & Simmons) say was
properly set aside in Civil Court. Har har har har har.
2) Sheppard cultivation exemption which the Crown says was
only for the "cultivation" offence under the old Narcotics
Control Act, not for the "cultivation" offence under the new
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Lawyers splitting
hairs.
3) Hitzig "medical" exemption: "Those who establish medical
need are simply exempted." The Crown is trying to argue it
means "Those who establish medical need simply get
exempted" by Health Canada whereas the context of the
statement was about people accused before the courts.
Lawyers!
4) Hitzig resurrection didn't happen and Krieger
invalidation did. And both apply to possession offence.

Rudy Seegobin is also in Ottawa Court trying to get a
Section 24 Order for the return of his pot back after
charges were dropped rather than argue against the Krieger
Prohibition of  prosecution.

Busy day. Stay tuned for the real revolution.


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

JCT: In Googling for John Turmel, I found that Parliament's
web site had me listed. Doing a search, I got over 200 hits
but my page was incomplete:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=8cd3a04d-5796-44\
d4-afed-b39f3c4687e1&Language=E&Section=MunicipalExperience
Parliament of Canada - Contact Us
Do you need information about Parliament?
Do you have a question about Parliament?
Do you need help finding information on the Web site?
To send us your questions, please fill out the Information
form or contact us at Information Service, Parliament of
Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0A9. info@...
Toll-free (Canada): 1 (866) 599-4999 Tel: 1 (613) 992-4793

Do you have questions about the Web site?
Have you found a broken link?
Do you have a comment on the structure or design of the
website?  To send us your comments, please fill out the Web
site question form or contact us at infonet@....

JCT: Their trivia page used to have a listing at
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/compilations/Trivia/Trivia.aspx
Canadian Parliamentary Trivia
a page where you will find fascinating facts such as
the longest serving Prime Minister
the first woman appointed Minister of the Crown
the youngest Senator
the first MP of Chinese origin
the shortest session of Parliament
the number of electoral ties broken by the Returning Officer
and much more.

JCT: If you clicked "Guinness Book of Records", you got to a
page on John Turmel listing 5 of my 27 elections. But an
empty picture slot, no party affilition. So I sent a
message and got this confirmation.

Response info@...
Thank you for visiting the Parliamentary Internet
Parlementaire Web site (http://www.parl.gc.ca).
We are interested in receiving comments on the Web site as
well as visitor feedback. Your message has been received and
contained the following:
Your email address: johnturmel@...
Your name: Anonymous

Your message:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=8cd3a04d-5796-44\
d4-afed-b39f3c4687e1&Language=E
Turmel John C. 5 elections listed, 22 more to go. See
wikipedia for list
Abolitionist Party of Canada leader 1993 general election
Under Guinness Book of Records
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/compilations/Trivia/Trivia.aspx
"Most elections contested" and
"Most elections lost" held by Canadian

JCT: When I got no response and the page remained empty and
incomplete, I wrote again:

>Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:21:40 -0700 (PDT)
>From: johnturmel@... (John Turmel)
>Subject: Turmel Parliamentarian
>To: infonet@... Cc: turmel@...

Your page on me notes 5 federal elections
www.wikipedia.com lists 27
Picture: http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/guinness.jpg
Date of birth: 1951 02 22
Place: Rouyn Quebec
Occupation: Banking Systems Engineer, Professional Poker Player
Political affiliation: Abolitionist Party of Canada
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/abprogs.htm

JCT: So did Parliament's website complete their page on me?
No, they deleted most of their links to my page. Including
the reference to the Guinness Record!

Ah well, I'm used to it. The Guinness Book of Record itself
deleted my record from their international online database.
"Most elections contested" can't be found. So being deleted
from a national database isn't all that important. It's just
that why is interesting.



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

JCT: Because the Crown couldn't find Real Martin in time to
serve him their Response, they needed an extension of time.
It also game me a chance to get in any last licks. I hope
this helps:

File Number: 32010
Appeal Court No: C44684
                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
       (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO)
  BETWEEN:
                         Real Martin
                                          Applicant for leave
                                          Appellant in appeal
                             and
                    Her Majesty The Queen
                                         Respondent for leave
                                         Respondent in appeal

                      APPLICANT'S REPLY
                    REAL MARTIN, APPLICANT
                   (Pursuant to Section 28)
OVERVIEW

      1. Though the Applicant professes medical need without
qualifying for an exemption like Drouin, this issue is not
whether the prohibition is bad for the sick, it's about
whether it's been invalid for the past four years for all.
Applicant adopts the evidence and arguments of Pierre Drouin
in #32009 that we were charged with an offence no longer
known to law because the S.7 cultivation offence was
invalidated by the Alberta Court of Appeal in R. v. Krieger
but never reflected in the Criminal Code of Canada.

      2. When the Crown did not amend the Criminal Code of
Canada to reflect the invalidation of the S.4 possession
offence by the Ontario Court of Appeal on Terry Parker Day
Aug. 1 2001, the police, the bar, the bench ended up
prosecuting 500 invalid offences over two more years. The
last remaining 4000 possession charges had to be dropped and
the 100,000 bogus convictions registered since the
possession had been struck down had to be covered up. The
Parker 4000 Screw-up and the Parker 100,000 Scandal.

      3. When the Crown again did not amend the Criminal Code
to reflect the invalidation of the S.7 cultivation offence
by the Alberta Court of Appeal on Grant Krieger Day Feb 4
2003 after the 60-day period to apply for leave to appeal
and get a stay of judgment pursuant to Section 65.1(1) of
the Supreme Court of Canada Act had expired, Applicant and
200,000 more Canadians have suffered bogus prosecutions at
the hands of the police, the bar, the bench obeisant to the
written word while the cultivation and possession offences
were both invalid over the past 4 years and had never been
re-enacted by Parliament. The Krieger 200,000 Scandal.

BACKGROUND:

     4. The Supreme Court of Canada Bulletin of Proceedings at
lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/bul/2003/html/03-12-23.bul.html
details the December 23 2003 Krieger decision:
<< 29569 HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. GRANT WAYNE KRIEGER
(Crim) (Alta.)
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Major and Fish JJ.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

December 11 2000
Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta  (Acton J.)
Section 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act,
inasmuch as it relates to cannabis marihuana, declared
inconsistent with the Charter; declaration suspended for one
year; Respondent granted an exemption from the application
of s. 7(1); charge stayed

November 28 2001
Court of Appeal of Alberta  (O'Leary J.A.)
Period of judicial stay extended until further order of the
Court of Appeal.

December 4 2002
Court of Appeal OF Alberta
(Wittman, Costigan and Lo Vecchio JJ.A.)
Appeal with respect to s. 7(1) dismissed.>>

March 25 2003
Supreme Court of Canada  (Arbour J.)
Motion to extend time allowed

May 20 2003
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed.

Dec 23 2003
The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the
Court of Appeal of Alberta (Calgary), Numbers 01-00011-A and
01-00288-0A, dated March 18 2003, is dismissed. >>

      5. After the Crown lost its appeal, it failed to file
an application for leave to appeal within 60 days so a
judicial stay pursuant to Section 65.1(1) of the the Supreme
Court of Canada Act could not be obtained. The Acton Order
of Invalidation of the S.7 cultivation offence had to take
effect on Feb 4 2003 Grant Krieger Day as surely as the
Parker Order of invalidation of the S.4 possession offence
took effect on Aug 1 2001 Terry Parker Day.

      6. An extension of time for the Crown to apply for
leave to appeal was granted but the Crown never obtained a
S.65 stay out of the Supreme Court because, as S. David
Frankel explains in the Crown's May 16 2003 Memorandum:
<<[57 As matters how stand, S.7(1) has been declared of no
force and effect by the highest court in Alberta. An
application to vacate the order of O'Leary J.A. suspending
the declaration could be brought at any time. If the
suspension order were vacated, then the cultivation of
marihuana would not be an offence in Alberta.>>

      7. The Crown did not amend the Criminal Code to reflect
the Krieger invalidation and sicced Canada's justice system
on 200,000 innocent Canadians for 4 more years because the
Final Order dismissing appeal isn't a "further order" of the
court needed to lift the Appellant's stay pending appeal!
Applicant Pierre Drouin has rebutted that proposition.

      8. Applicant stresses that the Alberta Court of Appeal
makes no mention in its March 18 2003 Bench Memorandum of
needing to lift a stay once their court becomes functus
officio. And there is no way to apply to lift anything once
the appeal file had been closed.

      9. The Court says clearly that Justice Acton demanded
nothing of the Government, she simply struck the section
7(1) cultivation offence as unconstitutional. And the Court
of Appeal finally dismissed the Crown's appeal against her
Order. No mention of any continuing stay of her judgment.
Was Applicant entrapped by the Alberta Court of Appeal
writing that the cultivation offence was struck down when it
never took effect because of some stay emanating out of the
Appeal Court after the dismissal of the matter?

      10. The Supreme Court's own online information says the
section 7 prohibition is struck down as inconsistent with
the charter, that's all. Though there is mention of the
extension of the stay granted to Appellant by O'Leary, there
is no mention that the continues to suspend the order. It
only says the Section 7 cultivation offence was struck down
by the Alberta Court of Appeal with no mention of any
lingering interim stay thwarting the invalidation. Was
Applicant entrapped by the Supreme Court writing the section
7 offence was struck down when it never took effect? If
there really was an Order forever staying the Acton
invalidation, you'd have thought these courts should have
pointed it out rather than let everyone read that Section 7
offence is struck when it's not.

      11. Either the Crown lawyers are idiots for thinking an
interim stay pending appeal out of a lower functus officio
court continues to stall their defeat years after they've
lost all their appeals or the Courts have been derelict in
not mentioning this unwritten effect in their judgments.
Though the Supreme Court says it's struck down, it really
isn't. Though the Alberta Court says it's invalid, it really
isn't, thus entrapping all those who read that the S.7
cultivation offence had been struck down.

      12. Drouin makes the persuasive argument the Crown
lawyers are idiots. Criminal law demands a strict
interpretation of criminal statutes. Even if the Appellant
Crown's stay pending appeal does continue after the appeal
has been dismissed, the fact it wasn't mentioned by the
courts has misled and entrapped the accused into thinking
that what the Supreme Court had written down was true.

      13. If what the Supreme Court printed wasn't true, then
the accused shouldn't be held accountable for what the
Supreme Court misrepresented as a non-illegal activity.
Either the Supreme Court was wrong in letting Canadians
believe what the Court wrote down or the Crown lawyers are
wrong for busting 4 years worth of people after the law's
repeal had actually taken effect. With a judiciary who
enforce the written word, Applicant is a victim of the
Crown's failure to republish the legislation to reflect the
Court's rulings.

      14. Though the Crown dropped 4000 charges all across
Canada due to Parker, it still argues that when a federal
statute is struck down, it also needs to be struck down in
every other province too. So the Alberta Court of Appeal
ruling does not affect prosecutions in Ontario. This is
silly.

      15. When the highest courts in Canada affirm a ruling
which strikes down an unconstitutional violation of a
Charter right and the courts then see that ruling ignored by
the Attorney General and that invalid statute in an
unamended Criminal Code enforced against an unsuspecting
populace, it has to be the duty of the courts to see that
their Orders are obeyed. The fact four known epileptics a
day die of seizures who should not have died had their anti-
seizure herb not been improperly prohibited makes this of
national importance.

      16. When Justice Binnie caused this challenge to the
legislation by John Turmel and Terry Parker to be abandoned,
the delay permitted the deaths of an extra 3000 epileptics,
not even counting all the other deaths caused by people with
other illnesses who could have been saved. This is a
question of life and death where delay cause more deaths.
Yes, Justice Binnie is noted for writing how lawyers and
judges are rejects from math class and his own careless loss
of thousands of lives are an indication of the importance of
a full hearing of this issue.

      17. The Ministry of the Attorney General is culpable of
mischief and genocide, after all, it did involve denying
dying patients who needed access to cannabis such access on
the basis of the enforcement of invalid statutes. The Crown
has no right to refuse to delete laws that have been struck
down by the courts and keep prosecuting under them. 4000
charges stayed, 100,000 illegitimate convictions registered
and never expunged, these are incredible deliberate crimes,
not incompetent errors, committed by the State and the
courts who blindly obey the printed word and not the rulings
of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Dated at Coppell Ontario on Jun 19 2007
____________________________
Applicant:
For the Applicant:
Real Martin
R.R.#1 Box 20 Coppell ON P0L 1N0
Tel: 705-362-7502 Fax: 519-753-0645


JCT: So that's it. The two biggest scandals in Canadian
judicial history want the attention of the Supreme Court.
The Crown win over Turmel they put into the Criminal Code
and never got a final hearing should. And thousands of
deaths resulting from judicial incompetence. Lots of good
reasons that the applications for leave to appeal be granted.

Now it's up to 3 judges to sign their names saying what the
Crown has done is all okay.


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

Subject changed to "The Piss Boy" by w_b_r...@...
From: w_b_r...@...
Newsgroups: sci.econ, sci.engr, alt.conspiracy
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 10:16:56 -0700
"By the way, he thinks he's shaming me...
John "Piss Boy" Turmel
---

Subject changed to "The Mindless Echo Boy" by Brian Whatcott
From: Brian Whatcott <betw...@...>
Newsgroups: sci.econ, sci.engr, alt.conspiracy
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 01:45:19 GMT

On Fri, 01 Jun 2007, w_b_r...@... wrote:
By the way...

By the way, he thinks he's shaming Turmel when
in fact he is showing off his propensity as a crashing
bore: vapid, unenlightened, boorish spiteful:
w_b_ryan - boor extraordinaire

JCT: I've been called bank-fighter extraordinaire arguing
banking with the "boor extraordinaire."
---

From: "sinister" <sinis...@...>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 07:10:47 -0400
Newsgroups: sci.econ, sci.engr, alt.conspiracy

"Brian Whatcott" <betw...@...> wrote in message
> w_b_ryan - boor extraordinaire

That's putting it lightly.
In his willingness to post the exact same content over and
over, his refusal to acknowledge basic dictionary
definitions, his almost complete reliance on argument ad
homimen and appeal to authority (well, in his case, quite
selective appeal to authority), he's simply the most
despicable poster I've ever seen in this forum.  He's got
the other contenders beat by an order of magnitude.

Just Google Groups to see Bill Ryan's input
groups.google.ca/group/can.politics/search?q=john+turmel&start=0&hl=en&


JCT: The biggest flea on the biggest ram? I think Ryan's
purpose is to discredit the Social Credit movement he says
he champions in public. Now going down in posterity as a
"demented lunitic" is a useful pan on that worthy movement.
I don't even know if he's a real person. I just know that
automatically opposed almost everything I ever said, no
matter how right! I proudly posted our debates at my site
because I beat him up so badly.

After being improperly banned from ijccr for his on-topic
foul mouth, he changed his persona to s_a_kline@...
but now seems to have dropped that identity after I bet
Kline he couldn't back up what he had said and he had had to
back down so now it's p_t_hogwood@... venting lip. I
guess it's no fun being known as the A*shole Ryan posting
the graffiti in sci.eng and sci.econ

Anyway, agent provocateur or lunatic, his changing all the
subject titles of my USENET posts to "Piss Boy" doesn't seem
to have won him many points. His "Ryan" persona is forever
discredited, where can he hide? Kline? Hogwood? Doesn't
having to hide say lots?


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

>Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:11:06 +0000
>From: robert963963@... (robert963963)
>Subject: Turmel at SCC
>To: turmel@...

R: I read the post at the yahoo news group where you are
about ready to submit your paperwork and asked if anyone has
anything to add. I do. I've taken a few notes and I'll pass
them along to you. I hope you can make some sense out of
them. Sometimes I think faster than I type and some thoughts
are lost once I get to writing them down.

Issue 3: Resurrection of S.4 by Hitzig court
You have to ask the question; which rule of court allows the
OCA to resurrect laws? Just like the Nielsen's judge did. I
call them the lunch questions. I like this question and I
like seeing the crown twist in the wind answering it.

JCT: But Nielsen judge Gehan Edward was satisfied with the
Crown's answer that they wouldn't have done it if they
didn't have the power to do it so they must have the power
to do it even if he couldn't find where they had the power
to do it.
This is being raised in my appeals. Only the Section 7
cultivation strike down is being raised in the Drouin and
Martin appeal. So this question can't go in the last kick at
the can. And we're lucky that the Drouin Section 7
invalidation has nothing to do with the Hitzig resurrection.
All the action happened before Hitzig and besides, Alan
Young says his Hitzig case resurrected the possession
offence, not the cultivation offence. No one knew about the
cultivation offence having been struck down in Dec 2002 by
the Krieger Court of Appeal until I heard about it in the
Dec 2003 refusal of leave to appeal by the Crown. Only then
did I check into what had gone on and found out how the case
had been misrepresented in the press as a personal victory
for Krieger rather than the general strike-down of section 7
cultivation offence for all Canada.

Issue 1:
60. The problem is that access isn't a function of being
sick but of finding a gatekeeper! The Crown cites paragraphs
138-9 of the Hitzig decision:
AND
63. The exemption scheme remains ineffective as long as
Government cannot provide a list of physicians who will
participate with the exemption system.

R: I'd like to see this issue expanded upon. The federal
government created a MMAR that does not meet the minimum
standards for writing prescriptions established by the
College of Physician and Surgeons (the governing body with
jurisdiction over medical practitioners).

JCT: But Alan Young got Judge Sidney Lederman to rule that
since a few of Canada's millions of sick who could benefit
have actually overcome the hurdles to exemption placed
before them, it cannot be said to be impossible. So Alan
Young's Hitzig case proved the MMAR can work. Like I joke,
lawyer-judges deem failing 99.9% the time a success but most
of the rest of sentient humanity do not.

R: The government calls them QUALIFIED MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS
but there is no governing body to license doctors who are
qualified to prescribe cannabis. Which doesn't matter
because there are no accepted standards for becoming
qualified to prescribe cannabis.

JCT: Luckily, since cannabis is non-toxic with even the US
government statistics admitting there has never been a
fatality due to marijuana, what kind of preparation do they
need. What have they studied to be able to prescribe "rest
and chicken soup."

R: For example, a dr has to take extra courses before he
becomes qualified to prescribe heroin. (Have you ever heard
of Dennis Lillico? He won a BC Human Rights Tribunal case
that touches on this issue. He managed to get the BC College
of Drs to provide a resource of cannabis studies to Drs. so
that they can make informed decisions.) Link to College's
resource;
https://www.cpsbc.ca/cps/physician_resources/publications/resource_manual/medmar\
ijuana

AND
67. Fifteen hundred exemptions out of a population of
several million who need it for medical use may qualify as
"working well" for a lawyer but protecting less than a tenth
of one percent isn't what could be called success in the
real world.

R: Can you ask the judge exactly what the number is that
makes a medical program effective?

JCT: No, you can't force them to answer anything. They're
specialists at closing their eyes and seeing "no evidence."

R: Medical research scientists may have a different number.
(If you're an abortion doctor and only 10% of your
procedures results in termination of pregnancy, the other
90% carrying the baby to term, then can you call your
procedure effective?

JCT: You can't say it's not since sometimes it is, the
Lederman judicial reasoning.

R: If you are an executioner and 90% of your procedures
results in mere injury rather than death then can you call
your procedure effective?)

JCT: Again, the Lederman Hitzig decision says it only
"doesn't work" when it "never works."

R: The problem with this argument is that there is nothing
in the Charter, BNA Actor anywhere that says the government
is obligated by law to implement effective policy. As a
matter of fact the Malmo-Levine decision mentioned that the
government is not obligated to implement good policy. (If a
policy is constitutional it does not matter if it's
ineffective.)

JCT: So there's your answer. What do you expect from the
judicial "bottom of the barrel" crowd? Logic? Success? Har
har har har. Lawyers, rejects from math class leading
society. Har har har. Sob sob sob sob.

R: Is there a role for MMJ in family practice. Pro and con
debate. This might piss you off.
http://www.cfpc.ca/cfp/2006/Dec/vol52-dec-editorial-debates.asp

JCT: I think kids who are ordered to be sedated in order to
attend school should be able to choose between the Ritalin
and Prozac chemical drugs they are now offered or a natural
herbal marijuana muffin.

R: Issue 2
Since July 2005 the streamlined MMAR application requires
that physicians sign a form confirming the diagnosis, the
symptoms, THE FACT THAT PRIOR TREATMENTS HAVE BEEN TRIED OR
CONSIDERED, that the use of cannabis has been discussed, and
that cannabis is not an approved drug. (my emphasis)

JCT: They've had these conditions from the beginning. But
before, the doctors had to not only confirm they thought
about all other possibilities but also had to give details.
To pharmacists! Har har har har.

R: This bugs me because it still puts the decision in the
dr's hands. The dr is the one who will decide if what I've
tried was safe and effective which is contrary to the case
law that says I have the right to choose my medical
treatment even if everyone else thinks its foolish.

JCT: Does your objection apply to heroin too? Or just herb?
Of course, heroin is physically addictive while marijuana is
just a little less psychologically addictive than chocolate
ice cream. If it's there, you want some, if it's not, you
don't suffer withdrawal.

R: Regardless of the case law, for the gov't to expect me to
try every combination of prescription medication available
to me is unrealistic.

JCT: No, they're asking your doctor to confirm that he's
considered all other combinations. Of course, this is
insulting because it's part of a doctor's profession to make
just those kind of decisions. That they have to sign a
redundant form confirming that they did what they're
supposed to do only indication more clearly that the purpose
of the access regulations is to puke doctors out so they
don't want to participate. And it has worked.

R: I take three medications daily. There are approximately
621 different combinations of these three medications
between the minimum therapeutic dose and the maximum
allowable dose. Let us assume that three weeks is an
adequate period of time to determine if a particular
combination of drugs and dosage is safe and effective. It
would take almost 36 years to satisfy THE FACT THAT PRIOR
TREATMENTS HAVE BEEN TRIED OR CONSIDERED.

JCT: Again, it's to confirm the doctor has done what he's
supposed to do, take everything into account. Not actually
try everything. Just think about everything.

R: Issue 4:
Hammer home the timeline and its importance. The timeline is
so clear I'll bet ya all it takes are for a few SCC clerks
to sort out the mess officially once and for all.

JCT: I know the Crown and the Appellate courts have done
their level best to not keep things in chronological order,
switching events or leaving readers with erroneous
impressions, but it can't be ignored, it's really all we
have. The cultivation and possession offences were never
officially re-enacted by Parliament after being officially
struck down by courts of competent jurisdiction no matter
that a trio of power-mad rejects from math class have
over-reached they judicial power to bring a repealed statute
back to validity without legislative input.

R: Quote the court orders and rulings directly. The crown
has a nasty habit of re-phrasing the court orders and
rulings to change their meaning.

JCT: It's funny but should a court ever cite a false quote,
they'd be laughingstocks. No, they won't cite the Crown
errors as part of their rulings. It doesn't matter. The
Supreme Court doesn't say why they reject applications for
leave to appeal which is why Crown misrepresentations don't
get remembered.

R: No court order can be inserted prior to Terry Parker Day
or Grant Krieger Day that can change the facts or procedural
history of their cases.

JCT: It's the Hitzig and Malmo-Levine Orders after Terry
Parker that caused problems. Fortunately, Pierre and Real
were charged with cultivation after the Krieger invalidation
of the cultivation and possession offences but before the
Hitzig resurrection(?) of the possession offence! Perfect.

R: I can't buy alcohol before I reach legal age and no court
can issue an order today that can be inserted prior to
reaching legal age that changes the fact that on December
25, 1987 I became legal to purchase alcohol. In other words
the timeline was satisfied at the time and it cannot be
changed.

JCT: Actually, at this stage, the problem is to convince the
court that the issues raised are of public importance. The
bogus convictions of 200,000 Canadians in the past 4 years
on the basis of a non-existant Appellant's stay surviving
the appeal, is of such a magnitude as to warrant the highest
scrutiny. Because my Hitzig and Turmel appeal losses were
both entered into the Criminal Code, that fact makes their
complete adjudication by the highest court important. After
the national importance gets us in, then we go into smashing
the Crown's alibis.

R: I have to follow the procedure/timeline and so does the
government. I can't vote the day after Election Day. There
is no mechanism for voting the day after Election Day.

JCT: And there is no mechanism to file an application to a
closed appeal file to lift the stay that the Crown says must
be lifted before the Krieger invalidation takes effect. If
they're wrong, that's 200,000 bogus busts.

R: The returns officers will not even issue me a ballot on
which to vote the day after Election Day. And even if I
found a ballot that had fallen off a truck it would still
not be counted.

JCT: The Court clerk won't let you file a motion to a closed
file either. Of course, the Supreme Court may choose to "see
no evidence" that this is so.

R: Anyway, enough babbling from me. I think I told once
before that the only time I've ever been to court was for 5
minutes to plead guilty. I don't have much to offer by way
of advice other than keep at it. Some day they'll crack.

Baclofen; minimum therapeutic amount is 40mg/day. Maximum
allowable dose is 80mg/day. Tablets come in 10mg and 20mg
doses. Recommended dosage increases in 5mg steps. 9 doses
Clonidine; 0.2-0.6mg/day but can go as high as 2.4mg.
Tablets come in 0.1mg, 0.2mg and 0.3mg doses. Recommended
dosage increases in 0.1mg. 23 doses
Ditropan; 5-15mg/day. Tablets come in 5mg doses. Recommended
dosage increase in 5mg steps. 3 doses
621 drug combinations multiplied by 21 day trial period =
13041 days (almost 36 years) before the dr says I'm allowed
to try cannabis.

JCT: Isn't "smoke as much of this non-toxic herb as you need
to achieve relief" easier for your doctor to think about
than all these combinations?


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

JCT: Real Martin lives is in the Northern Ontario bushland
with without electricity or modern conveniences. He gets no
mail delivery but uses a post office box.

The Crown has the same bad habit I do of serving and filing
our documents usually on the very last day. I do it because
I mull and mull and only when faced with a deadline does it
all finally come out in its final form at the last minute.
In this case, I finished printing out my last Reply at
4:15am and my bus was leaving Brantford for Ottawa at 5am.

It's incredible how many of the hundred cases or projects
I've engineered were finished in the last two hours. I
remember a couple of times typing up my motion right in the
Court of Appeal office lobby. Once I arrived at 3:30,
sitting down on the floor and plugging in my typewriter and
finishing up at 4:15, with time to make copies and file by
closing time at 4:30. I have no doubt the clerks have their
own favorite stories and some may remember Turmel's instant
paperwork.

This time, last minute service caused the Crown a problem.
When their bailiff went looking for Real, they couldn't get
proof of service until he picked it up and who knows when
he's going to come into town. So they couldn't prove service
and have to file an application to the Supreme Court for an
extension of time to file their Response to Real and to use
fax service which comes to my number, since Real doesn't
have a phone.

Of course, because Real adopted Pierre's arguments, I didn't
write and file a Reply for his case! You'll notice that the
Ontario Court of Appeal had listed Real Martin before Pierre
Drouin on the documentation even though Pierre was charged
first and filed his Krieger motion to prohibit prosecution
first. I had even asked the Court to make sure our
consolidated case be headed Pierre Drouin, the accused sick
guy with the exemption, but they put the Real Martin, the
accused sick guy without the exemption. So I didn't want
them allocating the argument to Real so I didn't file a
Reply after having him adopt Pierre's arguments.

But I couldn't have served Real's Reply to the Crown
Response anyway. He never got it. He's only getting it now.
So even though all their arguments have been rebutted in
Pierre's Reply and I don't really have to file one in Real's
name, it does give me one last kick at the can in case I've
forgotten anything.

I've actually thought of something that would be useful for
someone in Real's position to make.

No matter what bull the Crown is issuing about some
imaginary stay giving them the right to bust cultivators,
the Supreme Court of Canada own web site's note on the
Krieger case says only that the Alberta Court of Appeal
struck down the Section 7 cultivation offence. No mention of
any imaginary stay. Has Real been entrapped by the Supreme
Court saying Section 7 offence was struck when it never took
effect?

And the Alberta Court of Appeals own decision says clearly
that Justice Acton demanded nothing of the Government, she
simply struck the section 7(1) cultivation offence as
unconstitutional. And the Court of Appeal dismissed the
Crown's appeal against her Order invalidating the
cultivation offence in 2003 in exactly the same way the
Parker Order invalidated the possession offence in 2001. No
mention of any imaginary stay. Just that Section 7 is
struck. Has Real been entrapped by Alberta Court of Appeal
saying the cultivation was struck when it never took effect
because of some stay continuing emanate out of the Appeal
Court when the Appeal Court dismissed the matter?

If there was some kind of Order forever staying the Acton
invalidation, you'd have thought these courts should have pointed it
out rather than let everyone think Section 7 offence is
struck when it's not. Looking at the Supreme Court's
information, it says the section is struck down, that's all.
So, going by only the Supreme Court writings, they
said Section 7 has been struck down no matter what the Crown
says.

Now they're going to have to tell him that what the Supreme
Court of Canada has printed is not right, that there is a
stay out a lower court that they didn't mention which
countermands the striking down of the section by the highest
courts. So though the Supreme Court says it's struck down,
it really isn't. Har har har har. Can't wait to hear them
say their judgment has been over-ruled by a lower court!

Criminal law demands a strict interpretation of criminal
statutes. Even if the Appellant Crown's stay pending appeal
continues after the appeal has been dismissed, the fact it
wasn't mentioned has mislead and entrapped the accused into
thinking that what the Supreme Court had said was true.

If what the Supreme Court printed wasn't true, then the
accused shouldn't be held accountable for what the Supreme
court misrepresented as a non-illegal activity.

Wow. Pretty neat. With all the technical stuff in Pierre
Drouin's case, I can seek the obvious conclusion in the side
case!

If anyone else can think of anything that should be added at
this stage, I've still got 4 more pages I can fill in our
last shot to erase all 300,000 marijuana convictions in
Canada the past 6 years. And then send those ill-defended
people to their court masters to tax their lawyer's bill
for incompetent representation that let them be convicted
under and invalid statute that was plainly invalid. Can't
they read the Supreme Court's English?

No one should laugh. Going after the the last 300,000 bogus
prosecutions is the cake for which the original 4000 people
I did get off the hook is just the icing.

Send any suggestions to medpot-discuss@yahoogroups.com


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

JCT: Background:

ON: Judge knew pot smoker's reference
Posted: May 11 2006, 11:20 AM
Guelph Mercury Feedback: editor@...

He excuses himself from sentencing in medical marijuana
exporting case
SCOTT TRACEY, GUELPH MERCURY

Medical marijuana activist Marco Renda of Dundalk enjoys a
joint outside Guelph's Ontario Court of Justice yesterday.
GUELPH (May 11, 2006)

A Guelph judge's relationship with a medical marijuana user
derailed the sentencing yesterday of a pot crusader who has
admitted mailing the drug to users in the United States and
Britain. Justice Gary Hearn said while reviewing letters of
support last weekend filed by Marco Renda's lawyer, the
judge realized one of the letters was from "an acquaintance"
of Hearn's. "I feel it's not appropriate to proceed with
sentencing in view of that," the judge said. Hearn stressed
he already knew the letter writer, who was not identified in
court, uses marijuana to combat a medical condition. He said
the impact of seeing the person's name on the letter was
"zero" and he was not concerned it would taint his ability
to deliver a just sentence. "My concern is only for
appearances," the judge said, adding he is confident federal
prosecutor David Doney and defence counsel Leora Shemesh
were concerned about possible bias.

When court began yesterday morning, Hearn called the two
lawyers into his office and explained the conflict. He later
explained in open court why he could not continue to hear
Renda's case. Doney confirmed in court his "sole concern was
with the appearance of the matter." Shemesh said she had no
problem with Hearn continuing with the case, but understood
why the judge felt he must remove himself.

Renda, 46, of the Dundalk area northeast of Mount Forest,
pleaded guilty in February to exporting marijuana and
possession of hashish oil. He returns to court May 19 for a
pretrial hearing before a different judge. Even though the
case is back at square one it is possible another guilty
plea could be entered following the pretrial. Renda has been
authorized by Health Canada to possess and grow marijuana,
which he uses to alleviate the symptoms of hepatitis C.

Court earlier heard Renda operates a website --
treatingyourself.com -- through which he offered marijuana
seeds for sale to other medical users. On March 18, 2005, he
went to the postal outlet inside the Shoppers Drug Mart in
Fergus and dropped off 24 manila envelopes destined for
various addresses in the U.S., court heard. Canadian Border
Security officers intercepted two of the packages and opened
them because they believed a crime was being committed. The
two envelopes were each found to contain marijuana.

On March 31, border officers opened the remaining envelopes
and found them to contain a total of 79 grams of bud
marijuana -- valued at about $1,580 -- and dozens of seeds,
court heard. In the interim, Renda had gone to the same
postal outlet March 23 and mailed out two packages to
American addresses. These were also seized and found to
contain 80 grams of bud marijuana and four grams of powdered
marijuana with a total estimated value of $1,600, court
heard. On March 30, Renda mailed 17 packages to users in the
U.S. and United Kingdom. These were later found to contain
632 grams of bud marijuana and one vial of hashish oil with
an alleged value of more than $12,000, court heard. Police
later raided Renda's rural home, seizing eight vials of
hashish oil from the living room.

Shemesh earlier told court her client disputes the values
alleged by the prosecutor, and would provide evidence Renda
offered controlled substances through his website at a
greatly reduced rate. Outside court yesterday, Renda
expressed disappointment with the latest setback in his
case. But he said Hearn's acknowledgment he knows someone
who uses marijuana for medical purposes "shows judges
realize this is legit." Renda said following his guilty plea
in February that Health Canada revoked the growing portion
of his medical-use permit and said he would not be able to
reapply for 10 years. "They've given me a 10-year sentence,"
he said. "That's way more than any judge would give me."

Renda, who also publishes Treating Yourself magazine, said
he believes he was singled out because he is a vocal medical
marijuana activist. Before court yesterday, Renda and
several of his supporters stood outside the Wyndham Street
courthouse, openly smoking marijuana. Constable Ben Bair of
the Guelph Police drug unit, who was at court on another
matter, ensured each of the tokers had their Health Canada
exemption cards.
stracey@...

Source: The Guelph Mercury
Link: http://tinyurl. com/2zvfzu
Letters: editor@guelphmercur y.com

JCT: End Result:

Man pleads guilty to pot-by-post plan
Plea crafted to protect grower's licence

SCOTT TRACEY
GUELPH (Jun 7, 2007)

A medical marijuana crusader accused of mailing pot to
fellow users in the United States and Britain pleaded guilty
yesterday to committing mischief by using Canada Post
services "without proper authority." Following Marco Renda's
plea, federal prosecutor David Doney asked the court to
withdraw three counts each of trafficking and exporting a
controlled substance and a single count of possession of a
controlled substance.

JCT: From trafficking down to possession, a section that
Parliament has not yet re-enacted after the Parker and
Krieger invalidations. Lucky for him. I'll get that erased.
Like I got the six possession charges dropped against Marc
Emery out of the 4000 charges dropped across Canada! Even
the narc moles get out with the real victims in big wins.

Justice Walter Gonet gave Renda, 47, formerly of the Mount
Forest area, a conditional discharge and put the man on
probation for two years. Outside court, Renda's lawyer,
Leora Shemesh, said the plea was carefully crafted to
protect her client's Health Canada licence, which allows
Renda to possess and grow marijuana. He uses the drug to
alleviate the symptoms of hepatitis C. Shemesh said if Renda
had pleaded guilty to any drug-related counts it could have
cost him his federal exemption from marijuana laws. "The
court was compassionate with that and so was the Crown,"
Shemesh said, noting the plea to mischief was hammered out
between the judge and lawyers for both sides during a series
of pretrial meetings. "His honour was aware of not wanting
to affect his licence," Shemesh said. "It was a
compassionate resolution."

Renda was accused of mailing 43 packages of marijuana to
people in the U.S. and United Kingdom during March 2005. He
was arrested April 13, 2005, when members of the Ontario
Provincial Police's drug enforcement section executed a
warrant at his home in Southgate Township, northeast of
Mount Forest. In entering his plea yesterday, Renda admitted
only that he used the postal service to send out "plant
materials."

JCT: 43 packages!

Shemesh said as well as the compassionate reasons to
conclude the case, the Crown might have had difficulty
proving its case because of "continuity issues" surrounding
Canada Post's handling of the packages, including who had
authority to open them.

Renda has since moved to Toronto, where he publishes
Treating Yourself magazine, billed as "a journal for
patients by patients."  He said the resolution of the
charges "gives me some breathing room to get back to what I
was doing, which is educating the uninformed to the value of
medical marijuana." Renda said he also intends to give away
marijuana seeds through his website (treatingyourself. com)
and to continue lobbying Health Canada to provide free
marijuana to those who qualify to legally possess it. The
federal government pays Prairie Plant Systems to grow
marijuana in an old mine shaft in Flin Flon, Man., which is
then provided, at a cost, to exempted people.
stracey@guelphmercu ry.com

JCT: I can just imagine Leora Shemesh's summation to get the
judge to agree to a plea of mischief instead of
"international drug trafficking."

Leora Shemesh could have started by saying:

I was on Alan Young's legal team when Terry Parker won his
first Superior Court opinion that the MMAR had failed to
comply with the court's ruling and the possession offence
was no longer valid. Alan helped the Crown get that criminal
jurisdiction ruling set aside pursuant to the civil rules of
practice (because there's no avenue in criminal law to set
aside a judge's order without appealing and we didn't want
the notoriety of an appeal).

Then as Parker continued his quest for the declaration that
the prohibition dam had come down on Terry Parker Day 2001
because the government had failed to install the working
exemption doors though the dam, Alan Young and I started the
Hitzig decision to fix the doors in the downed dam hoping to
bring the dam back up.

Remember, Terry Parker was seeking the declaration that the
law had become invalid on Terry Parker Day 2001 and here it
was 2003 and your court had been convicting people daily for
over 2 years without anyone but Parker's legal counsel
knowing that the Terry Parker Day Declaration of
invalidation of the section 4 possession offence had taken
effect. Suddenly, everyone would find out that the law had
been dead for the past 2 years, they'd have to drop all
charges and wait for Parliament to prohibit it all over
again.

That's where Alan Young's Hitzig case comes in. It was the
companion case to fix the exemption system that was
consolidated with the Parker case trying to declare that the
prohibition had died and that we didn't need an exemption
system.

To make sure no one would hear about Parker saying the court
had screwed up over the past 2 years, when the court ruled
that the exemption system had failed to work over the past 2
years, they also granted Alan Young's motion to fix the
exemption system in the Hitzig case which brought the
prohibition back to life and saving anyone finding out about
all the bogus convictions this, and every other court in
Canada, were derelict in signing. But by bringing the law
back to life on the very day everyone finds out its' been
dead for 2 years lets prosecutions go merrily on with no one
the wiser that 2 years worth of convictions, Your Honour
having your share, were registered across Canada.

Of course, only Parliament can resurrect an invalidated
statute but we got the court to order that lower courts
ignore the Interpretation Act that says "laws declared of no
force and effect are to be deemed repealed" and treat them
as only absent until fixed by Parliament or the courts. And
they're busy working on fixing what was wrong with capital
punishment to put an end to John The Engineer's annoying
attacks on the marijuana prohibition.

All thanks to the accused Marco Renda here, who financed the
Alan Young and his team of marijuana activist lawyers that
brought the marijuana law back to life and that you could
continue convicting with no one noticing the hundred of so
bogus convictions you signed and never corrected or
apologized for. Alan Young fixing the exemption system to
bring the law back to life on the very day Terry Parker gets
it declared having been dead for the past 2 years was pretty
smooth!

So here's Marco Renda, exporting 43 packages all around the
world, leading the pro-marijuana activists in his defiance.
But believe me, he's really working for us, he's really just
a Judas Goat leading the innocent astray.

So he doesn't deserve to be punished for international drug
trafficking. As one of our most productive narc moles, not
only is his name on the Hitzig appeal that resurrected the
possession offence but he also funded the fight to fix the
exemption before or when Parker got the law declared dead.

He's a hero to our Prohibitionist cause who helped Alan
Young's team of pro-marijuana shysters not only keep the law
alive but also keep anyone from knowing about Your Honour's
personal list of bogus convictions. Because of this man, no
one knows about the average hundred or so convictions you
presided over while law was dead. Considering how Mr. Renda
has helped the Government keep the law alive in the hearts,
if not brains, of Canadians, and covered your ass over all
those bogus convictions over 2 years, I'd suggest you let
him plead guilty to mischief instead of trafficking
marijuana all around the world."

JCT: Right, Judas Goat getting a golden parachute after
leading the sheople of the cannabis culture to the
prohibitionist slaughterhouse.


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

JCT: J'ai enregistre le party Abolitionniste du Canada au
forum social du Quebec pour le 23-27 aout 2007 ou il y aura
deux presentations sur les systemes JEU-SEL de credits
sociaux.

I registered at http://www.forumsocialquebec.org/ for
the Abolitionist Party of Canada, booked a stall and two
round table presentations for Aug. 24 and 25 on establishing
a world-wide JEU-SEL. (UNILETS)

Je souhaite que d'autres groupes SEL-JEU au Quebec et au
monde viennent m'aider a voler la vedette avec nos argents
sociaux. Vous avez jusqu'au 22 juin pour enregistrer votre
activite.

I urge other JEU-SEL groups in Quebec and elsewhere to try
to attend and help me steal the show with a world-wide JEU-
SEL. You may register your activity until June 22.

http://www.forumsocialquebec.org/

Accueil et nouvelles  Programmation
Programmation
English version follows

La programmation du Forum social quebecois offrira un
eventail d'activites: ateliers de discussions, conferences,
tables de controverse, films et documentaires engages,
concerts, performances artistiques et espaces de creation
libre, marche de cloture, assemblee des mouvements sociaux.
Il y en aura pour tous les gouts!
Pour que le Forum Social Quebecois soit representatif de la
diversite des realites quebecoises il faut que le maximum de
groupes et d'individus s'approprie l'evenement. Nous
encourageons donc la participation active des multiples
composantes de la societe civile quebecoise.
C'est pourquoi, dans un esprit d'inclusion, et a l'instar
des forums sociaux mondiaux, le FSQ repose largement sur
l'auto-programmation: la programmation est construite par
l'ensemble des participantEs. Ainsi, toute organisation ou
citoyen-nes pourra proposer des activites qui correspondent
a leurs preoccupations en completant en ligne le formulaire
d'inscription d'ateliers. Dans le but de favoriser une
convergence efficace des initiatives, le comite de
programmation a defini 3 axes transversaux et 8 axes
thematiques au sein desquels pourront s'inscrire les
multiples propositions d'activites.
Si vous souhaitez participer a l'elaboration de la
programmation du FSQ et organiser des activites, nous vous
invitons a consulter les axes thematiques, ainsi que la
methodologie guidant le processus d'auto-programmation. La
date limite pour proposer des activites a ete fixee au 31
mai 2007.
Pour toutes informations:
info.programmation@...

http://www.er.uqam.ca/nobel/social/2007/participezauforum/participezauforum.html
Forum social quibicois 23 - 26 aout 2007 a Montrial

Accueil et nouvelles  Inscription au Forum
Inscription au Forum !
Une contributions solidaire!
En tant qu'innovation collective, le Premier forum social
quibicois a besoin du soutien de tous ses participantes et
participants pour exister. Aussi, nous demandons a toutes et
tous, confirenciers, artistes, exposants de contribuer
solidairement a la tenue de l'ivinement en s'inscrivant
individuellement et en payant les 20$ requis pour
l'inscription. Pres de 20% du budget d'organisation du FSQ
est couvert par les inscriptions et les activitis de
financement. Cette contribution permettra de profiter de
toutes les activitis organisies durant le FSQ (spectacle
d'ouverture*, ateliers, grandes confirences, soiries
culturelles, festival du documentaire, espace de criation
libre, nourriture gratuitement distribuie).
Nous vous encourageons a vous inscrire a l'avance, notamment
car les places au spectacle d'ouverture sont limities et
pour faciliter l'organisation du  FSQ. Soyons solidaire et
investissons pour la rialisation du Forum!
Pour l'inscription en-ligne, cliquez ici.
Vous pouvez igalement imprimer le formulaire
d'inscription et l'envoyer par la poste ou le
diposer dans les bureaux du FSQ (3720 Parc, 2e itage):
Formulaire d'inscription, format PDF
Formulaire d'inscription, format DOC

Les frais d'inscription ont iti fixis a 20,00$ (+ frais, +
taxes) par personne pour les quatre jours de l'ivhnement.
Prix spiciaux
Personnes ` faible revenu
Un prix spicial sera offert aux personnes ` faible revenu.
Nous vous invitons ` communiquer avec le Secritariat du FSQ
afin de connantre les modalitis particulihres d'inscription.
fsq@... (514) 982-6606 poste 2235

Participants ` l'Icole d'Iti de l'Institut du Nouveau Monde
(INM)
Tel que convenu avec l'Institut du Nouveau Monde (INM), et
afin de faciliter la participation du plus grand nombre aux
deux ivinements, le FSQ offre un tarif riduit (15$) ` tous
les participants de l'icole d'iti de l'INM. Pour binificier
de ce tarif, vous devez remplir le formulaire d'inscription
ci-joint et nous le retourner, accompagni de votre paiement
ainsi que d'une preuve d'inscription ` l'icole d'iti de
l'INM, ` l'adresse indiquie sur le formulaire.

Notez qu'il sera possible pour toutes les organisations de
faire des inscriptions groupies au FSQ. L'INM offre aussi
une riduction de leurs frais d'inscription pour les groupes
de 10 personnes et plus. Veuillez les contacter pour de plus
amples ditails (http://www.inm.qc.ca/).
Pour de plus amples informations:
fsq@... (514) 982-6606 poste 2235

File name: convocation.5juin.doc | File type:
Aux affectateurs politiques et culturels
Communique de presse pour publication immediate et rappel le
mardi 5 juin a 7h

Source : Forum social quebecois
Invitation aux medias : conference de presse

Un autre Quebec est en marche ! Le FSQ prend forme :
Plus de 200 activites deja inscrites!

Montreal, le 4 juin 2007. Les medias sont invites a une
conference de presse le mardi 5 juin a 10 heures 30 au
Centre St-Pierre, 1212 rue Panet a Montreal (salle 201),
pour la presentation d'une version preliminaire de la
programmation du premier Forum social quebecois (FSQ) et le
lancement de la tournee estivale de sa caravane de
mobilisation a travers le Quebec. Les responsables du FSQ
sont heureux d'annoncer l'appui que donneront plusieurs
nouvelles personnalites des domaines culturel et militant a
la tenue de cet evenement unique, qui reunira des milliers
de personnes a Montreal du 23 au 26 aout.

Au cours de la conference de presse, les porte-parole
presenteront une version preliminaire de la programmation du
Forum Social Quebecois, qui est pour l'instant constituee de
plus de 200 activites touchant aux huit axes thematiques du
FSQ et programmees par les participants eux-memes, d'un
grand spectacle d'ouverture, et de quatre grandes
conferences auxquelles participeront plusieurs conferenciers
et conferencieres internationaux. Les porte-parole
annonceront ensuite le lancement de la tournee estivale de
la caravane de mobilisation du FSQ, qui s'arretera dans une
douzaine de villes du Quebec a travers l'ete afin de
promouvoir le FSQ. Les porte-parole enonceront finalement
les raisons pour lesquelles ils et elles appuient la tenue
du FSQ.

OBJET : Bilan interimaire du Forum social quebecois
DATE : Le mardi 05 juin 2007, a 10 heures 30
LIEU : Centre Saint-Pierre, 1212 rue Panet, a Montreal,
salle 201
PORTE-PAROLE : Raphael Canet, secretariat du FSQ
Karen Young
Joujou Tourenne
Laure Waridel
Monique Simard
Gil Courtemanche
Pour renseignements : Raphael Canet, secretariat du FSQ, 514
883-9594 ou 514 982-0533 et Louis-Serge Houle, 514 598-2157
www.forumsocialquebecois.org
-------------------------------

File name: communique.5juin.doc
COMMUNIQUE DE PRESSE
Plus de 223 activites inscrites a ce jour
Le Forum social quebecois s'annonce comme une reussite
(Montreal, le 4 juin 2007) organisation du premier Forum social
quebecois, qui se tiendra a UQAM du 23 au 26 aout, s'annonce
comme un grand succes et atteste de la pertinence de
permettre C des milliers de personnes de se rassembler pour
debattre et echanger autour d'alternatives au
neoliberalisme, qui domine outrageusement au Quebec comme
ailleurs dans le monde.

JCT: Le probleme c'est le neoliberalisme?

Les preparatifs vont bon train et nous sommes confiants, en
raison entre autres du nombre d'activites inscrites jusqu'a
maintenant, que le FSQ sera l'evenement social de l'ete au
Quebec ont indique les porte-parole.
Alors que s'amorce une grande tournee de mobilisation
regionale, en juin, afin de favoriser une participation
large au FSQ, les organisateurs de l'evenement sont fiers
d'annoncer la programmation de plus de 223 activites
inscrites a ce jour par des organisations et des individus
impliques dans leur milieu. Au total, 170 ateliers,
conferences et tables rondes figurent au programme, alors
que 53 activites sont inscrites dans la programmation
culturelle.
Et ce n'est pas tout, la date limite pour proposer des
activites a ete repoussee au 22 juin afin de permettre au
plus grand nombre de participer.
Bien que notre campagne de promotion se realise avec des
moyens relativement modestes, nous sentons un veritable
engouement pour participer au forum B;, ont poursuivi les
organisateurs, qui etaient egalement heureux de presenter de
nouvelles personnalites appuyant la tenue de l'evenement en
y pretant leur nom. Il s'agit de Laure Waridel, de Monique
Simard, de Joujou Turenne, de Gil Courtemanche et de Karen
Young, qui ont motive leur appui lors de la conference de
presse. Ces porte-parole s'ajoutent aux Louise Beaudoin,
Paul Piche, Samian, Raoul Duguay et Armand Vaillancourt qui
ont deja donne leur appui au FSQ.

Une programmation diversifiee
Les 223 activites inscrites dans la programmation du FSQ
touchent un eventail tres large de thematiques :
surexploitation de nos ressources naturelles ; effets des
privatisations sur les services publics ; droit au logement
; impacts de la mondialisation sur les conditions de travail
; capitalisme financier ; economie sociale et solidaire ;
marchandisation de l'education ; problematiques liees a
l'immigration ; solidarite internationale ; condition
feminine ; revendication de l'egalite sociale des groupes
marginalises ; droits des peuples autochtones ; etc.Parmi
les organisations qui ont inscrit des activites, notons :
Amnistie Internationale, la coalition Eau secours, le YMCA
Montreal, le FRAPRU, la Fondation Rivieres, Developpement et
Paix, Femmes autochtones du Quebec, la Federation des femmes
du Quebec ainsi que plusieurs organisations syndicales.

Pour les organisateurs, le FSQ servira de tremplin a de
grandes mobilisations et a la mise en oeuvre d'alternatives
concretes au Quebec au cours des prochaines annees.
L'eventail des sujets traites est au coeur des
preoccupations quotidiennes de la population et des
difficultes qu'elle rencontre face a la mise en oeuvre de
politiques neoliberales B;, ont-ils poursuivi.

Le FSQ sera aussi le theatre de quatre grandes conferences
ou interviendront une vingtaine d'invite-es, d'ici et
d'ailleurs. Ainsi, sur le theme Affirmer nos droits,
enrichir notre democratie, Michele Asselin, presidente de la
Federation des femmes du Quebec, prendra la parole, tout
comme le Bresilien Chico Whitaker, l'un des concepteurs des
forums sociaux mondiaux qui ont vu le jour a Porto Alegre en
2001.  Pour la conference Quebec-Ameriques : Quelles
solidarites ?, la Bresilienne Myriam Nobre, coordonnatrice
de la Marche mondiale des femmes et Dorval Brunelle,
professeur C l'UQAM et directeur de l'Observatoire des
Ameriques, prendront la parole.

Par ailleurs, la conference Un Quebec riche de toutes ses
regions fera bien sur une large place a des panelistes
d'ici, tels Jacques Proulx, de Solidarite rurale, et
Ghislain Picard, chef de l'Assemblee des Premieres Nations
du Quebec et du Labrador. Une quatrieme conference,
rassemblant notamment Marie Pelchat de la Clinique
Communautaire de Pointe-St-Charles et un syndicaliste
francais de la CGT, portera sur la privatisation des
services publics et des ressources naturelles.

La caravane du FSQ
Des le 12 juin, la caravane du FSQ sillonnera le Quebec pour
faire la promotion du Forum. Au cours de l'ete, la caravane
s'arretera dans une dizaine de villes dont : Quebec,
Drummondville, Sherbrooke, Joliette, Saint-Jerome, Gatineau,
Wendake, Saguenay et Trois-Pistoles. Des soirees de
mobilisation et d'information seront organisees au cours
desquelles sera presente le premier documentaire francophone
sur les forums sociaux mondiaux, Changer le monde, quelle
drole d'idee,  realise par Violaine Bonnassies, Judith
Cayer, Melanie Morin et Manuela Santiago-Teigeler. La
caravane sera aussi accompagnee de musiciens du groupe
Bombolesse.
Finalement, veuillez noter que la phase d'inscription pour
les participantes et les participants au FSQ est maintenant
ouverte http://www.forumsocialquebecois.org
Pour renseignements : Raphael Canet, secretariat du FSQ, 514
883-9594 ou 514 982-0533 et Louis-Serge Houle, 514 598-2157

<<PROGRAM
In order to make the QSF an event representative of Quebec's
diversity, it is essential to maximise the number of groups
and individuals that make this event their own. We therefore
encourage the active involvement of every element of civil
society. In order to maintain the spirit of social forums
that have taken place in the rest of the world, the FSQ
relies on self-programming from its participants. Every
group or individual will propose activities which correspond
to their preoccupations by completing an Online Registration
Form and forwarding it to the Program Committee, who will
sort out the different propositions, taking care to organise
logistic and thematic issues in order for the FSQ to cover a
great variety of topics and activities.

The organisation committee has defined 3 transversal axes
and eight topics around which the proposed activities will
be organised.

Activities Calendar
The event will begin on August 23rd with the participants'
registration (inscriptions). A great outdoor gathering will
take place in the evening, addresses will be heard and a
great musical show will be held during the night.
The days of the 24th and 25th of August will be devoted to
workshops and cultural events (socially engaged film
festival, documentary viewing, artistic performance).
Both days will end with an outdoor cultural manifestation.
The FSQ will conclude on August 26th with an assembly of the
social movements in the morning and a march in the
afternoon.

In order to cover the 8 thematic axes, we plan on having a
maximum of 30 workshops simultaneously. With a plan to
organise 4 workshop periods (8:45-10:45AM, 11:00-1:00 PM,
1:45-15:45 PM, 4:00-6:00PM) during 2 days, resulting in a
maximum of 240 workshops. 4 major conferences will also take
place (evenings of the 24th and 25th from 7:00-9:30 PM), as
well as a grand assembly of the social movements (August
26th, from 10:00-1:00PM).

info.programmation@...


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

JCT: You'll remember my writing about Brantford shyster John
Renwick who has been told about the Krieger invalidation of
Section 7 offence but advises his clients to plead guilty to
marijuana offences he should know no longer exist. He's
helped another elderly couple plead guilty to the
cultivation section that the Supreme Court of Canada says
was invalidated by the Krieger case.

Brantford Expositor
May 15 2007
Struggling farmers grew marihuana
Scotland-area couple receive 15-month sentence

A farm couple who struggled to make ends meet now each have
criminal records and will have to spend the next 15 months
at home as a result of their poor choice of crops.
Walter Stys, 63, and his wife, Gladys, 61, of R4 Scotland
received the sentence on Monday after pleading guilty to
production of a controlled substance and possession for the
purpose of trafficking....
A pre-sentence report revealed that Walter and Gladys Stys
are a hard-working couple with no prior criminal records. A
series of economic setbacks, including a failed tobacco
farm, factory jobs lost due to plant closures and unreliable
livelihood in vegetable farming, had taken their toll on the
couple who raised six children and are the primary
caregivers for an adult paraplegic son.
Their dire circumstances gave rise to the "bad and illegal
idea" to grow marijuana to make money, said defence lawyer
John Renwick.
Justice Martha Zivolak agreed with the suggestion of a
lengthy conditional sentence for the couple.

JCT: Puts our tax money to work paying some civil servant to
supervise these "hurt no one" offenders for a few years.

Anyway, I wonder how much shyster Renwick squeezed out of
this old hard-working couple in payment for his getting them
convicted while the law happened to be invalid. I wonder how
many people he let be convicted of possession between Aug. 1
2001 and Oct 7 2003 while the courts admit the Section 4(1)
possession had been invalidated by Terry Parker.

That's the reason no lawyer could argue the Parker
invalidation and I could. I'm an engineer with nothing to
lose by the truth and they're the lawyers who were derelict
in letting their clients be convicted while the law was dead
and should probably owed them a refund of fees for their
inept legal performances!

Sadly, Editor David Judd's Expositor squelched any
information about the Nielsen case that would have permitted
the Stys family to find out about the Krieger invalidation
of the Section 7(1) cultivation offence.


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

PROHIBITION OF PROSECUTION BY KRIEGER S.7 INVALIDATION

Court File: 32011
Appeal Court No: 44587
                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
       (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO)
BETWEEN:
                        John C. Turmel
                                                    Applicant
                                          Appellant in appeal
                             and
                    Her Majesty The Queen
                                                   Respondent
                                         Respondent in appeal

                      APPLICANT'S REPLY
                  JOHN C. TURMEL, APPLICANT
                   (Pursuant to Section 28)

1. On May 14 2003, the Applicant was charged with possession
of marihuana for the purposes of trafficking pursuant to
section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
(CDSA).

2. On Oct 7 2003, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an
appeal of the decision of Justice Aitken refusing to
prohibit prosecution on the grounds the possession offence
in S. 4 of the CDSA had been invalidated by the Parker
decision and that invalidation extended to S.5(2). The
Application for leave to appeal was dismissed as abandoned
by Justice Binnie for getting one document in late.

3. On Feb 23 2007, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the
Applicant's appeal of the decision of Justice MacLeod
refusing to prohibit prosecution on the grounds not only the
possession offence in S. 4 but also the cultivation offence
in S.7 had been invalidated by the Krieger decision and
those invalidations extended to S.5(2) because in its view
the decisions in R. v. Turmel (2003) 177 C.C.C. (3d) 533
(Ont.C.A.) and Hitzig v. Canada (2003) 177 C.C.C. (3d) 449
(Ont.C.A.) were binding and that possession for the purpose
of trafficking marijuana was an offence known to law.
Applicant's request for a 5-judge panel necessary to
overrule those decisions was denied thus stacking the deck.
















4. When legislation is struck down, is Parliament required
to reprint the statute to effect the repeal? The Crown calls
the period of invalidity during which the Parker Court had
invalidated the s.4 offence a period of "uncertainty." The
Parker Court of Appeal's Order declaring "the marijuana
prohibition in s.4 of the CDSA to be invalid" is not so hard
to understand. The Crown professes to be "uncertain" about
what it means.

5. Section 2(2) of the Interpretation Act says statutes that
are of no force and effect are to be deemed "repealed," not
"uncertain." By calling the period of invalidity a period of
uncertainty, it is less clear that the statute had to be
deemed repealed. It's easier to say you're bringing an
"uncertain" law back to life instead of a law that's been
repealed for two years. Just as the death penalty can't be
unrepeal one invalidated, so too, the possession prohibition
couldn't be unrepeal once invalidated.

6. Though the Hitzig Court of Appeal ordered Canada's judges
to ignore S.2(2) of Parliament's Interpretation Act to deem
"repealed" a statute that's been invalidated and to deem it
as only "absent," but courts cannot resurrect penal laws,
only Parliament can, an error causing untold thousands of
bogus prosecutions.

7. Section 7 cultivation and S.4 possession prohibitions
have been struck down and must be deemed repealed while
Section 5(2) and others have been invalidated by the
implication of the government failure to print a new Code.
As Justice Earle-Renton once said: you can't "possess for
the purpose" if possession is legal. You can't "possess for
the purpose" if cultivation and possession are legal.

8. So with no change to the legislation, there was no change
to the pattern of busting resulting in the Parker 4000, the
Parker Scandal's 100,00 bogus unerased convictions, and the
Krieger 200,000 bogus convictions since then.

9. The Crown points out the S.5(2) offence was never struck
down but I said it had been invalidated by the Crown's
failure to reprint a new Criminal Code statute to reflect
the 2001 Parker Court's invalidation either by 1) exempting
"marijuana" from S.4(1) or nullifying it from Schedule II of
prohibited substances. Now it's about the Criminal Code not
being reprinted to reflect the 2003 Krieger invalidation of
the section 7 cultivation offence on Feb 4 2003.

10. The Crown insists the declaration in Parker did not have
the effect of repealing Canada's marihuana laws but the
declaration in Parker did have the effect of invalidating
the section 4 possession offence. The failure to reflect
that invalidation in Section 4 resulted in the invalidation
having to be effected by deleting "marijuana" from the list
of prohibited substances for all sections that referred to
the list. Had they exempted marijuana in Section 4(1) saying
it's an offence "to possess anything on Schedule II except
marijuana," sure, it would still be on the list for other
offences. But when they didn't reflect the invalidation with
an exemption in the section, it could only be invalidated in
the schedule. For all offences including "possession for the
purpose."

11. The Crown asks if the Chief Justice erred in not
providing the 5-judge panel necessary to overrule the
earlier 3-judge decision in R. v. Turmel (2003) 177 C.C.C.
(3d) 533 (Ont.C.A.)? The Crown notes that the Court of
Appeal for Ontario rejected the Applicant's argument "again"
on Feb 23 2007 when it stated: "Mr. Turmel's enthusiastic
arguments face an insurmountable hurdle. This court has
already rejected these types of arguments.. and concluded
that these offences remained in full force and effect." Of
course, the insurmountable hurdle of not having five judges
on the panel to overrule the three who said "that these
offences remained in full force and effect" was
insurmountable only because the Chief Justice stacked the
deck. Which is why giving me a panel without jurisdiction is
a ground of appeal.

12. The Crown says the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed
my argument that I was not charged with an offence know to
law twice. The second time, it was because the court was
bound by the first decision. The Crown notes: he was told in
2003 that his position regarding the "repealing" of the
prohibition of cannabis marijuana from schedule II of the
CDSA was fundamentally misguided. This is why I needed 5
judges to correct that ruling. The Crown admits that despite
the clear direction of the court, the Applicant again
brought the issue before the same court in 2007 and was told
that the previous decision was binding. Because the
Applicant had not been given the 5-judge panel necessary to
overrule the previous 3-judge panel that was now binding the
present 3-judge panel.

13. If R. v. Drouin establishes Krieger Day Feb 4 2003, then
there is proof Parker (Aug 1 2001) and Krieger had
invalidated both possession and cultivation at the time of
my arrest on May 14 2003 and before the Hitzig case could
have resurrected the prohibition again.

14. The Crown says this application raises no issue of
public importance but the decision I am challenging which
needed the 5 judges is a decision that was entered into the
Criminal Code of Canada as setting precedent. Such a
precedent-setting case raises an issue of national
importance.

14. The Crown keeps saying the law regarding the prohibition
against possession of marihuana for the purpose of
trafficking is well settled but the fact these appeals of
such precedent-setting decisions are going on proves it is
not settled law.

Dated at Brantford on June 3 2007
For the Applicant:
John C. Turmel, B. Eng.
--------------

CERTIORARI FOR JURY TRIAL

Court File: 32012
Appeal Court No: 44588

                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
       (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO)

BETWEEN:
                        John C. Turmel

                                                    Applicant
                                          Appellant in appeal
                             and

                    Her Majesty The Queen

                                                   Respondent
                                         Respondent in appeal

                      APPLICANT'S REPLY
                  JOHN C. TURMEL, APPLICANT
                   (Pursuant to Section 28)

1. On May 14 2003, the Applicant was arrested while holding
a bag containing approximately 3.3 kilograms of marijuana
packaged in 7 bags and was charged that the accused
"unlawfully did, for the purpose of trafficking, possess a
substance included in schedule II of the CDSA, to wit, an
amount "not exceeding" 3 kg's of Cannabis Marijuana,
contrary to section 5(2) of the said Act.

2. For amounts "not exceeding" 3Kg, Section 5(4) empowers a
judge alone with jurisdiction. For amounts "exceeding" 3Kg,
it's an offence under Section 5(3), not 5(4), and an accused
facing life imprisonment may elect between a jury trial or
judge alone.

3. In an application prior to the trial, Applicant
complained that since he was in possession of an amount of
marijuana greater than 3 kilograms, he should have an
election as to his mode of trial because section 553 did not
apply. This application was dismissed by Wright J. of the
Ontario Court of Justice on April 19 2005.
























4. An appeal of Wright's decision was brought in the
Superior Court of Justice before MacLeod J. in the form of
certiorari and dismissed on November 28 2005 as the court
could find no jurisdictional error made by Wright J. A
further appeal of this decision was dismissed by the Court
of Appeal for Ontario on February 23 2007 because, by the
time the appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal on Feb 23
2007, the appeal from the decision of MacLeod was mooted, as
the trial judge had rushed ahead to convict before the
Appeal court could rule.

5. The Crown asks: "Can the court review the discretion of
the Crown to proceed on a charge of possession for the
purpose of trafficking marihuana in an amount less than 3
kilograms when the evidence discloses that the marihuana was
more than 3 kilograms" and submits that, "absent a finding
of abuse of process, the court can not review the discretion
of the Crown to proceed on a charge of possession for the
purpose of trafficking marihuana in an amount less than 3
kilograms." Mis-stating the facts on an indictment is an
abuse of the process. Does the Crown's discretion on stating
charges also mean discretion on stating facts? Discretion
for charges on a given set of facts, not a different set of
facts. One corpse offers the choice between Pre-medicated
Murder One, Non-pre-medicated Murder Two, Negligent
Manslaughter Three. But "more than 3Kg" does not offer the
choice between "Over" or "Under." The Crown has discretion
with respect to allege different charges based on a set of
facts, but not discretion to allege a different set of
facts. A different set of facts is a lie. The Crown's
discretion is not to lie but the discretion to select the
charge that applies to the facts.

6. The Crown cites case law explaining how necessary it is
to exercise discretion in deciding when to lay charges, 2)
discretion to arrest and 3) discretion to conduct incidental
searches, 4) discretion as prosecutors do in deciding
whether or not to withdraw a charge, 5) discretion to enter
a stay, 6) discretion to consent to an adjournment, 7)
discretion to proceed by way of indictment or summary
conviction, 8) discretion to launch an appeal and 9) so on.
Lots of discretion but not to misrepresent the facts!




















7. The Crown cites Hoem v. Law Society of B.C. (1985) Esson
J.A. for the court observed, at p. 254, that: "The
independence of the Attorney General, in deciding fairly who
should be prosecuted, is also a hallmark of a free society.
Just as the independence of the bar within its proper sphere
must be respected." Discretion "within its proper sphere" is
not in the sphere of changing the facts from over to under.

8. The Crown says that "with any allegation of abuse of
process, it is the accused who bears the onus of proof that
the Crown's exercise of discretion amounts to an abuse of
process... there is absolutely no evidence that the Crown,
in proceeding on an information alleging less than 3
kilograms of marihuana (when the facts disclosed possession
of over 3 kilograms) was acting in an abusive manner."
Admitting they misrepresented the facts should speak for
itself as evidence of abuse.

10. The Crown says: "While the Applicant's complaints as to
jurisdiction and exercise of the Crown's discretion are
without merit, they should have been made to the trial
judge. In fact, the Applicant could have asked the trial
judge to exercise his discretion and invoke section 555 of
the Criminal Code which allows a provincial court judge to
convert a trial to a preliminary inquiry, thus allowing him
to potentially argue the case before a jury." Unfortunately,
the judge skipped from the pre-trial decision right to the
conviction so I had no time between his dismissing the
motion to quash and my conviction to ask. Again later, the
Crown notes it's curious the Applicant did not raise the
issue before the trial judge without noting the judge went
from the pre-trial to conviction with no time in between to
ask.

11. The Crown rationalizes denying a jury trial because
permitting this type of litigation to be argued before a
jury would undermine the public's confidence in the criminal
justice system. Yet, prohibiting prosecution is raised pre-
trial. Prohibition of prosecution can never inconvenience a
jury because it's not heard by a jury.


12. The Crown argues that "while in certain cases it may be
appropriate to have a jury trial, the fact that the
Applicant's guilt or innocence is of no particular public
importance, the decision to proceed with a charge in the
absolute jurisdiction of the Ontario Court of Justice was
reasonable." It was only because the charge was
misrepresented as "not exceeding 3Kg" that it could be held
in the lower Ontario Court of Justice. A true charge of
"exceeding 3Kg" would have had to be held in Superior Court.
So is it reasonable to misrepresent the amount because I'm
not important enough for a jury? At least they admit the
misrepresentation was to deny me the due jury trial.

14. A ruling by Ontario highest 3-judge panel on whether a
judge below has jurisdiction is not mooted by the lower
court judge rushing to judgment before they can rule!

16. All five judges, Wright, MacLeod, Labrosse, Sharpe,
Blair, agreed they saw nothing wrong with alleging false
facts on the indictment. Applicant hopes this court
disagrees.
Dated at Brantford on June 3 2007
For the Applicant:
John C. Turmel, B. Eng.
-------

CONVICTION MISSING PREVENTATIVE, NECESSITY, INSPECTION

Court File: 32013
Appeal Court No: 45295

                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
       (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO)

BETWEEN:
                        John C. Turmel

                                                    Applicant
                                          Appellant in appeal

                             and

                    Her Majesty The Queen

                                                   Respondent
                                         Respondent in appeal

               APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
                  JOHN C. TURMEL, APPLICANT
        (Pursuant to S.59(4) of the Supreme Court Act)

1. On May 14 2003, the Applicant was charged with possession
of 7 pounds of marihuana for the purposes of trafficking
pursuant to section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act (CDSA). Two offensive challenges to the
court's jurisdiction by way of Prohibition and Certiorari
were dismissed in Superior Court and appealed. Before they
could be heard in the year it took to organize a bilingual
panel, the trial judge rushed to judgment by handing down
his decision to convict with his decision on the pre-trial
S.601 motion to quash the charges thereby skipping any
opportunity for the Defence to raise a Charter application
or argue the defence of necessity or the defence of "no
intent to traffic, only an intent to permit inspection."

2. The Crown says: "He was unsuccessful and finally
convicted by Belanger J. of the Ontario Court of Justice on
March 10 2006." After the challenges to jurisdiction were
unsuccessful in 2007, I was "finally convicted in 2006?"

3. The Crown continues: "The Applicant appealed rulings
dismissing his applications for relief and his conviction to
the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The appeals from his
applications for prohibition and certiorari were dismissed
because they were moot." So the judge convicted before it
was settled and then the conviction was used as rationale by
the Court of Appeal to say the challenges to his
jurisdiction no longer applied!

4. The Crown says: The Applicant admitted the Crown's case
and the trial judge invited the Applicant to make
submissions to him as to the state of the law in writing."
The "state of the law" was my pre-plea S.601 motion to quash
before bothering with preparing a long and costly defence. I
did not write up and hand in a defence that "may not be
necessary if charges quashed." I waited to find out if the
trial would even proceed and had my Notice of Application
for Constitutional Relief ready to serve and file as soon as
the charges were ruled legit. And I did not admit the
Crown's case, not having heard the Crown argument yet, I
only admitted the Crown's evidence but with the conviction
in the same judgment as the decision on the pre-trial motion
to quash, there was no time available to present a defence
argument.

5. The Crown says: "It is only after conviction, and without
notice, that the Applicant raised other issues." I asked to
serve and file my prepared Notice of Constitutional Question
right after the pre-trial motion to quash had been
dismissed, in the right order, but just after I found out
the conviction had already been written up. The judge could
have still permitted me to make my defence by just handing
down the decision on the quash and omitting the decision on
the conviction but instead said it was too late since he'd
already decided on convicting me. The judge is the one who
started the trial before finishing the S.601 motion to quash
which caused any confusion on the plans of the Defence. The
fact the judge handed down his conviction before I could
then enter a defence didn't mean I shouldn't ask him to let
me take the next steps in the defence and reconsider handing
down his judgment right then.

6. The Crown asks: "Was it correct for the judge to refuse
to hear the Charter challenge for preventative medical
use?... Applicant's proposed argument that the possession of
marijuana as a form of "preventative medical use" has
already been dismissed by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in
the decision of Hitzig v. Canada, supra... The Court of
Appeal held that there was no medical evidence presented
that the smoking of marijuana by healthy individuals had any
prophylactic effect whatsoever and that section 4 of the
CDSA was only overbroad to the extent that it applied to
those who already had a serious medical condition."

7. It's quite illogical to think the beneficial effects only
apply to those who already have a serious medical condition
and not also to those getting it. And now we've found that
Dr. Donald Tashkin, the researcher who'd originally
concluded marijuana causes lung cancer, has reversed himself
and found evidence that it seems "to have some protective
effect." (Washington Post May 26 2006) Prohibition of this
protective effect from the planet's most useful medical herb
is as much a life and death issue as for any sick person.

8. The Crown asks: "Should the judge have permitted the
accused to raise the defence of necessity or the defence of
no intent to traffic only an intent to permit inspection?"
The right question is "Should the judge have permitted the
accused to raise a defence?" The complaint isn't that he
didn't permit two particular defences, as if he refused to
permit it to be raised like many judges do. The issue is
that I didn't get to make any defence arguments at all. I
only got to raise the "offence" argument to quash but no
defence once the quash had failed.

9. The Crown says: "The trial was adjourned to March 10
2006, however, the trial judge proceeded to hear the facts
surrounding the case to be read into the record - a
procedure consented to by the Applicant." Yes, the judge
adjourned but proceeded some more.

10. The Crown cites from the transcript:
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:.. 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."

11. It is pretty clear that the Crown and Defence argument
on the prima facie case still had to be made. All the
evidence I would need was in the Crown's case. The fact
there were 3.277 Kilograms of marijuana and that the officer
heard me say that I was dropping it off for the Prime
Minister's inspection. But because I had no evidence didn't
mean I didn't have any argument no matter what the judge
thought, and when he found out I wasn't finished, there was
no need to deny me any defence except to "mooten" the
appeals against his jurisdiction if he could convict me
before they were heard.

12. The Crown points out: "On March 10 2006 (after having
previously provided with written submissions by the
Applicant and the Crown) the trial judge released a written
judgment where he found that the Applicant was charged with
an offence known to law and that because the Crown's case
was admitted the Applicant was guilty." Yes, the ruling on
my pre-trial and end-of-trial judgments were handed down at
the same time.

13. The Crown says: "As the above passage outlines in great
detail, the Applicant was given ample opportunity to raise
any defence he wished, but failed to do so." I was given
ample opportunity to raise any evidence, but argument was to
be raised "not now." And it's the judge who put things out
of whack by starting the trial before ruling on the pre-
trial motion to quash it. From pre-trial to conviction with
no defence or Crown argument in between is the result, no
matter that he got his conviction registered before we had a
chance to get any arguments in.










14. The Crown says "the Applicant is raising these defences
(Necessity, Inspection) for the first time on appeal... The
Applicant is an experienced litigant. He had every
opportunity to raise any defence he wanted to before the
trial judge." A main issue here is that I had not because
the judge skipped them at the trial.

15. The Crown cites precedent against introducing new
arguments on appeal in that "counsel for both sides, having
discovered that the strategy adopted at trial did not result
in the desired or expected verdict, devised new approaches."
This is not a new approach after an old defence approach has
failed, it's the old defence that never got heard below.

16. Note that the Crown says: "the Applicant admitted that
he possessed marihuana for the purpose of trafficking and
his core submission at trial was that he was not charged
with an offence known to law." I admitted I possessed it for
the purpose of permitting inspection, not trafficking. And A
Section 601 "unknown to law" motion to quash isn't raised at
trial, it's at pre-trial. The pre-trial portion was dealt
with but I didn't get a chance to present any defence
argument at trial at all nor did the Crown get to present
any prosecution argument either.

17. The Crown points out: "There is no evidence that the
Applicant is in serious medical need of cannabis marihuana
to treat a medical condition." And I don't want to wait
until there is.

Dated at Brantford on June 3 2007.
For the Applicant:
John C. Turmel, B. Eng.



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

JCT: Pierre Drouin is challenging his section 7 cultivation
charge based on the Krieger invalidation of the section 7
cultivation offence. Real Martin adopts Drouin's arguments.
I'm challenging my section 5(2) possession for purpose of
trafficking charge based on the Krieger invalidation of the
section 7 too.

Court File: 32009
Appeal Court No: C44683
                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
       (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO)

BETWEEN:
                        Pierre Drouin
                                                    Applicant
                                                  (Appellant)
                             and
                    Her Majesty The Queen
                                                   Respondent
                                                 (Respondent)
                      APPLICANT'S REPLY
                   PIERRE DROUIN, APPLICANT
                   (Pursuant to Section 28)
OVERVIEW
      1. The Applicant was charged with an offence no longer
known to law since the Alberta Court of Appeal ruling on Dec
4 2003 struck down the CDSA Section 7 marijuana cultivation
prohibition (and, by implication, Section 4 possession) and
the Crown then failed to obtain a Section 65 Supreme Court
of Canada stay within 60 days of the dismissal of the appeal
by Feb 4 2003. Applicant was charged under S.7 on June 11
2003, after Krieger Invalidation Day. The Supreme Court
denied leave for a Crown appeal on Dec 23 2003.
      2. Crown Attorney S. David Frankel first advanced the
startling proposition that the interim stay granted to the
Appellant by one judge of the Alberta Court of Appeal until
further order of the court continues to stay the Acton
invalidation even after the Final Order of the Court had
dismissed the Crown's appeal and after leave to appeal to
the Supreme Court of Canada was refused. The Crown continues
to now hold that preposterous rationale for prosecuting
about 5000 marijuana charges per month, hundreds of
thousands, over the past 4 years. This is the main point of
appeal from Ontario Court of Appeal's decision.
      3. The Crown argues Applicant has essentially paralyzed
the prosecution by seeking prerogative relief (prohibition),
that interlocutory appeals in criminal matters should not be
encouraged. Higher court challenges to the jurisdiction of
the lower courts do suspend, not paralyze, proceedings and
such appeals for prerogative relief are allowed in the
Criminal Code whether they should be encouraged or not. Even
if not, cases affecting hundreds of thousands of people
should be exempted.
      4. The Crown argues such appeals would fragment the
criminal trial process but, since this was a pre-trial
application, the trial hasn't even started yet. The Crown
says Applicant has raised no jurisdictional issue but if the
statute was invalidated before Applicant was charged, the
court has no jurisdiction
      5. The Crown points out that an Order was made by the
Court of Appeal for Alberta staying the effect of the trial
judge's declaration of invalidity but doesn't mention why.
Did the Crown argue that Krieger's judge was wrong? No, that
was done and rejected in the appeal. The Crown's only
argument before O'Leary was that they were the Appellant and
deserved a stay pending the appeal or until further order of
the court. Such further order could be to shorten the
extension but there is no power to lengthen it past the
appeal. Upon reading the Crown's Application to Justice
O'Leary for the extension of the time "pending the appeal or
until further order of the court," it can be found that the
status as Appellant was cited over 20 times. In the Nov 16
2005 transcript in R. v. Cornelssen (Superior Court of
Alberta) before Justice Read, Crown Attorney in the Krieger
appeal, Scott Couper, examined by Cornelssen testified on
page 20:
<<A: Well, it was an interim motion, sir. It was meant to
keep matters at the status quo in terms of the Section 7(1)
remaining in force until further order of the Court...
Q:... you say the Appellant applies for an extension of of
the stay. 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, you wouldn't have any right to ask for
the stay?
A: Well, I think the Appellant would have a right to apply
and that's what we were doing...
Q: We see the appellant seeks a suspension of the order
"until the final disposition of the appeal."
A: Yes.
Q: Now, does that mean that when the appeal is over, the
extension is over?
A: Yes....
Q: Can you conceive of any circumstances where you could ask
for an extension of the stay if you were not 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.
Page 26: Q: Now it seems to me that if you were not the
appellant, the judge would not have power to grant that
extension, is that correct?
A: Well, it's -- it's -- it's triggered by an appeal.
Q: So no appeal, no right to grant an extension.
A: yes.
Q: So you just couldn't walk in 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. >>
      6. So the Crown in Krieger admitted that he was seeking
an interim stay though the Crown nonetheless now argues the
order suspending the declaration of invalidity remains in
force 4 years later.
      7. And what if the appeal had been heard within the one
year. An Appellant's stay would not have been necessary and
when the appeal was dismissed and 60 appeal period had
elapsed, the Acton invalidation would have taken effect.
That the appeal took 13 months and needed a stay pending
appeal cannot mean that the judgment is now forever stayed
by the lower court ruling.
      8. The Crown notes that the Ontario Court Appeal has
accepted that the Appellants' stay must still be lifted even
though the court should have known there is no way to apply
to a functus officio court that has closed the appeal file.
Mr. Couper even testified that Krieger Defence counsel
applied to lift the stay right after the appeal had been
dismissed but the Court refused to entertain his motion. If
the stay needs to be lifted, the court was derelict in not
dealing with it but if the stay lapsed with the Appellant's
status, they were correct because their functus officio
court had no status to entertain any new application. A stay
had to be gotten out of the Supreme Court. Why else would
there be a provision in the Supreme Court of Canada Rules
for a stay pending appeal if stays out of functus officio
courts were still in force?

      9. In their Final Written Memorandum, the court made no
mention of any stay that needed to be removed, the court
only wrote that the appeal against the Acton striking down
of Section 7(1) had been dismissed.
      10. The Crown asks: "Did R. v. Krieger (2000), affirmed
in R. v. Krieger (2003), invalidate section 7(1) of the
CDSA?" That is not the right question. The Supreme Court of
Canada online note on the Krieger says: "Section 7(1)
inasmuch as it it relates to marijuana, declared
inconsistent with the Charter; Appeal with respect to S.7(1)
dismissed." So the Supreme Court notes that the S.7(1)
offence was struck down. The real question would be: "Does
the interim "stay until further order of the Court" need to
be vacated after the "Final Order" of the Alberta Court of
Appeal has dismissed the Crown's appeal and did the O'Leary
stay lapse on Feb 04 2003 when the Crown did not obtain a
Supreme Court of Canada Section 65 stay within 60 days of
the dismissal of the appeal?
      11. The Crown argues that there has never been a
constitutional or legislative gap with respect to the
prohibition against production of marihuana in Ontario and
the most that can be said about the prohibition against
production in Alberta is that there is an existing order
suspending the declaration of invalidity. Once the Parker
Court struck down the S.4 offence, charges were dropped all
across Canada and once the Krieger Court struck down the S.7
offence, charges should have been dropped all across Canada
too.
      12. The Crown argues that the fact all courts in Canada
(including Alberta) have continued, without interruption, to
prosecute and sentence production of marijuana offences on a
daily basis and the various Courts of Appeal across the
country have continued to endorse these decisions is proof
that the S.7 offence has not been invalidated. But during the
two years the Parker invalidation of the S.4 possession
offence had taken effect on Terry Parker Day, all Canada's
courts were prosecuting and sentencing possession offences
on a daily basis too. All were later proven wrong. Here now,
the Krieger invalidation of the S.7 cultivation offence has
taken effect and Canada's courts are once again prosecuting
and sentencing cultivation of marijuana offences on a daily
basis. It's deja vu. All wrong before, all wrong now.
      13. The Crown further argues that any constitutional
deficiency which did exist at the time of the Krieger
decision (in 1999) no longer exists following the enactment
(in 2003) of the MMARs. But the MMAR issued in 2001 had not
worked to save the prohibitions and Applicant was charged
before the MMARs were revalidated by the Hitzig court in Oct
2003, 8 months after the Krieger invalidation of the Section
7 prohibition on cultivation and 26 months after the Parker
invalidation of the s.4 offence had taken effect. Once
struck down, statues can not be resuscitated other than by
Parliament. The Section 4 prohibition could not have been
resurrected by the Ontario Court of Appeal's Order in Hitzig
once it had been deemed repealed pursuant to S.2(2) of the
Interpretation Act no matter what they said they can do.
      14. With the legitimacy of 200,000 prosecutions
depending on whether an Appellant's stay survives the
appeal, this is an issue of national importance.
      15. The Crown keeps referring to the medical use issue
as settled law but it has nothing to do with this pre-trial
application for prohibition on the grounds the offence is no
longer known to law, a legal question, not a constitutional
one. It's an issue of whether the law has been repealed or
not, the reason for its repeal being immaterial to the case
even if Applicant is now a qualified Health Canada exemptee.
      16. Applicant submits that the possession prohibition
in S.4 is struck down (by implication) with the invalidation
of the cultivation prohibition in S.7!
      17. Applicant submits that the Crown should be ordered
to expunge the bogus convictions of all Canadians convicted
under the invalid S.7 and S.4 offences since Feb 4 2003.

Dated at Jogues on Monday May 25 2007

Pierre Drouin, Applicant.
Box 5  Jogues ON P0L 1R0
Tel/fax: 705-362-7502 Email: dpeted@...

JCT: Pierre is our best hope to establish the Krieger
invalidation!



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

JCT: Finally, the last appeal. Keeping them in order:
1) Drouin uses Krieger to challenge cultivation prohibition;
2) Turmel uses Krieger to challenge "purpose" prohibition;
3) Turmel wanting jury trial for more than 3Kg;
4) Turmel wanting conviction set aside due to
a) medical preventative constitutional challenge;
b) defence of medical necessity;
c) defence of no intent to traffic.

File Number: #32013
                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
       (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO)

BETWEEN:
                        John C. Turmel

                                                    Applicant
                                          Appellant in appeal
                             and

                    Her Majesty The Queen

                                                   Respondent
                                         Respondent in appeal

                Response to Leave Application
                    Her Majesty The Queen
                    (Pursuant to Rule 27)

CR: PART I - RESPONDENT'S STATEMENT OF FACTS

Overview of the Respondent's Position

1. On May 14 2003, the Applicant was charged with possession
of marihuana for the purposes of trafficking pursuant to
section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
(CDSA). He was convicted by a judge sitting alone in the
Ontario Court of Justice on March 10 2006. The Applicant
admitted the facts but advanced the startling proposition
that he was not charged with an offence known to law. His
appeal from conviction to the Court of Appeal for Ontario
was dismissed. The Applicant asserts: (i) that he was not
charged with an offence known to law;

JCT: In Prohibition Appeal #32011

CR: (ii) That he should have been afforded the opportunity
to raise applications pursuant to the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms and (iii) the trial judge should have
permitted to raise the defence of necessity or the defence
of "no intent to traffic, only an intent to permit
inspection" before he was convicted. This application ought
to be dismissed for the following reasons.
a) The application has no merit.
b) The issues raised are not of national or public
importance.

JCT: Violating my right to life by denying me the
preventative benefits of the planet's most useful and benign
herb is a life and death issue.

CR: The Facts

2. On May 14 2003, the Applicant faxed a letter to the
Department of Justice stating that he had marihuana that he
was going to drop off at various locations in Ottawa,
including Parliament Hill, the Prime Minister's office, the
Attorney General of Canada and to this Court. The Applicant
was arrested on Parliament Hill that same day while holding
a bag containing approximately 3.3 kilograms of marijuana
packaged in 7 bags.

3. Between May 14 2003 (the day he was charged) and December
15 2005 (the day of his trial), the Applicant brought a
number of applications (in the form of prerogative remedies)
to prohibit the prosecution from continuing.

JCT: Actually, the number is two. The Aitken Prohibition 1
decision based on Parker extending to all sections including
5(2) once the word had to be off the list, and the MacLeod
Prohibition 2 decision based on Parker and Krieger extending
to all sections.

CR: He was unsuccessful and finally convicted by Belanger J.
of the Ontario Court of Justice on March 10 2006 on the
charge of possession for the purpose of trafficking
marijuana contrary to section 5(2) of the CDSA.

JCT: I was convicted then unsuccessful (because I'd just
been convicted)! Notice how the Crown puts the order
backwards to preserve the impression I lost the ruling on
the judge's jurisdiction before he tried me when he tried me
before the ruling on his jurisdiction could be obtained,
hence the rush to judgment.

CR: 4. The Applicant appealed rulings dismissing his
applications for relief and his conviction to the Court of
Appeal for Ontario. The appeals from his applications for
prohibition and certiorari were dismissed because they were
moot.

JCT: Once the lower judge rushed ahead so as to make moot
the ruling of the three superior judges above him? Har har
har.

CR: His conviction was upheld by the Court because in its
view the decision of R. v. Turmel (2003) 177 C.C.C. (3d) 533
(Ont.C.A.) and Hitzig v. Canada (2003) 177 C.C.C. (3d) 449
(Ont.C.A.) were binding

JCT: That's because the Chief Justice Roy McMurtry denied my
request for the 5 judges needed to overruled the 3 Hitzig
judges, thus stacking the deck.

CR: and that possession for the purpose of trafficking was
an offence known to law. They further found that as the
Applicant had admitted the Crown's case at trial,

JCT: Notice how they switch from admitting the facts to
admitting the case. Can you imagine me admitting the Crown's
case? Har har har har nyuk nyuk nyuk nyuk.

CR: he was properly convicted and that he was given full
opportunity to present written argument on any issue he
wished to raise prior to his conviction.

JCT: During the pre-trial "motion to quash" phase, I never
got another turn after the pre-trial decision came down
because my defence (between the pre-trial decision and the
conviction decision) was skipped.

CR: It is only after conviction, and without notice, that
the Applicant raised other issues.

JCT: It was actually after the pre-trial motion to quash had
been dismissed that I asked to raise my constitutional
issue, in the right order. But the judge handed down his
conviction at the same time as his dismissal of the ruling
to quash and then refused to let me go to the next defence
step.

CR: PART II - QUESTION IN ISSUE

5. The Notice of Application appears to pose essentially
three questions:
(i) Is the section 5(2) prohibition still known to law

JCT: No, that's being settled in my appeal for prohibition
in Leave Application #32011, the one linked to Pierre
Drouin's and Real Martin's applications to prohibit Section
7 cultivation charges so I can say I was charged while the
Krieger invalidation had taken effect in 2003 as well as the
now-admitted Parker invalidation after 2001. I wonder if
he's going to redo the answers from the #32011 case?

CR: (ii) Was it correct for the judge to refuse to hear the
Charter challenge for preventative medical use?

JCT: No, was it correct for him to infer that "I'm in big
trouble" means "I have no defence to offer?" is more the
issue.

CR: (iii) Should the judge have permitted the accused to
raise the defence of necessity or the defence of no intent
to traffic only an intent to permit inspection?

JCT: No, Should the judge have permitted the accused to
raise any defence which he skipped to rush to judgment? The
complaint isn't that he didn't permit a particular defence,
as if he refused to permit to raise it like many judges do,
but that he didn't permit me to raise any defence.

CR: PART III - ARGUMENT

A. The Application Is Without Merit Because The Offence Of
Possession For The Purpose of Trafficking Marijuana Has
Never Been Ruled Unconstitutional By Any Court in Canada

JCT: Yet. That's was the whole purpose of going on the Hill
with a life-sentence supply. Had I gone with under an ounce,
I'd be one of the 4000 others I got off the hook. But I
wanted to get everyone off the hook so I gambled on the "not
yet declared unconstitutional like possession" Section 5(2)
possession for the purpose of trafficking implied by the
large amount.
Anyway, the Crown's next few paragraphs repeat everything
from the #32011 prohibition case:

CR: 6. The heart of the Applicant's argument lies in his
interpretation of a period of uncertainty in the province of
Ontario with respect to the enforceability of the offence of
simple possession of marijuana under section 4(1) of the
CDSA. The period of uncertainty involved a very precise time
frame between July 31 2001 and October 7 2003. The
Applicant's argument is anchored on the Court of Appeal for
Ontario's decision in R. v. Parker (2000) 146 C.C.C. (3d)
193 (Ont.C.A.) where the Court found s.4(1) of the CDSA to
be of no force and effect to the extent that it failed to
address the issue of possession of marijuana by those who
required it for medicinal purposes to treat medical
conditions.

7. The uncertainty persisted until the Court of Appeal for
Ontario in a series of decisions in October of 2003 settled
the law in Ontario with respect to simple possession of
marijuana 'Hitzig v. Canada; R. v. J.P. (2003); and R. v.
Turmel. The Court of Appeal concluded (i) that as of October
7 2003, the prohibition on simple possession of marijuana
under section 4(1) of the CDSA was of full force and effect
and (ii) that the period of legal uncertainty applied "only"
to the offence of possession of marijuana simpliciter.

8. Indeed, the Applicant (who has never claimed that he has
a medical need for marijuana) was the appellant in one of
these rulings by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in October
2003 which made it clear that section 5(2) of the CDSA was
never struck down as unconstitutional by that court.

9. The Applicant filed a notice of appeal of that decision
with this court in early 2004 which was dismissed as
abandoned.

10. The Court of Appeal for Ontario rejected the Applicant's
argument "again" on Feb 23 2007 when it stated:
<<Mr. Turmel's enthusiastic arguments face an insurmountable
hurdle. This court has already rejected these types of
arguments.. and concluded that these offences remained in
full force and effect.>>

11. In summary, the declaration in Parker did not have the
effect of repealing Canada's marihuana laws nor did it
delete marijuana from Schedule II of the CDSA. The Applicant
continues to operate under a "fundamental misconception"
that during the period uncertainty legislation prohibiting
possession for the purpose of trafficking marijuana was
somehow "repealed." Given that the law with respect to
possession marijuana for the purpose of trafficking has
never been deemed to be of no force and effect, the
Applicant's conviction was proper, especially given that the
Applicant himself admitted at trial that "if the law's still
alive, I'm in big trouble."

JCT: Like I said, this is the issue in appeal #32011 and not
an issue in my conviction #32013 Leave Application. I've
answered earlier and won't answer here.

CR: B. The Application Is Without Merit Because The Trial
Judge Was Correct In Refusing To Allow The Applicant To
Raise Certain Defences AFTER He Was Convicted.

JCT: Actually, I did raise the issue of putting on my
defence right after the judge had dismissed my application
to quash on the grounds Krieger had made it unknown to law.
But the judge told me I couldn't go to step two because he'd
already written up the last step and was convicting me now.
So I did ask at the right time but before I found out the
conviction had already been written up. And rather than just
hand down the decision on the quash and omit the decision on
the conviction to permit me to make my defence, the judge
said it was too late since he'd already decided on
convicting me.

CR: 12. The Applicant's trial commenced on December 15 2005.
The Applicant admitted the Crown's case and the trial judge
invited the Applicant to make submissions to him as to the
state of the law in writing.

JCT: The state of the law being unknown was my pre-plea
motion to quash before bothering with preparing a long and
costly defence. And that's what I did. I did not write up
and hand in my "may not be necessary if charges quashed"
defence. I waited to find out if the trial would even
proceed.

CR: The trial was adjourned to March 10 2006,

JCT: For the decision on the motion to quash. If refused, I
had my Notice of Application for Constitutional Relief ready
to serve and file.

CR: however, the trial judge proceeded to hear the facts
surrounding the case to be read into the record - a
procedure consented to by the Applicant.

JCT: The judge even got me to agree to not making a defence?

CR: The following exchange took place:
<<THE COURT: 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.

JCT: Remember, the judge adjourned the decision on the
motion to quash the charge but then insisted on opening the
trial that might still be quashed!!

CR: 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...

JCT: I guess he couldn't bring himself to say "the argument,
I'll hear later."

CR: MR. TURMEL: Well then, I have no evidence. I'll have no
evidence to call, Your Honour.

JCT: All the evidence I would need was in the Crown's case.
The fact there were 3.277 Kilograms of marijuana and that
the officer heard me say that I was dropping it off for the
Prime Minister's inspection. What evidence more did I need
but the facts I'd already admitted? But because I had no
evidence didn't mean I didn't have any argument.

CR: 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.

JCT: No, I was only going to use the admitted facts provided
by the Crown's evidence.

CR: 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 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.

JCT: I had all the true facts on record so I can't imagine
what more evidence I needed.

CR: 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.

JCT: Then I'd have to do the preventative medical
constitutional challenge and the the "necessity" and
"inspection" defences, deductive reasoning not easily
followed by a legally-trained mind.

CR: THE COURT: Okay.
MR. TURMEL: That's my point. So there are going to be no...
I would probably, if the law is judge alive, maybe even
plead guilty, but I've stood mute. But, I just mean that
there's no defence to offer, and I'm not going to challenge
the facts.
THE COURT: And that was your point.
***
JCT: "No defence to offer" was certainly a mis-statement or
typo. I had plenty of defence ready to offer and no matter
what the judge thinks now that "no defence to offer" means,
when I did say I wanted to offer a defence, there was plenty
of time to have heard it. There was no need to deny me my
defence except to "mooten" the appeals against his
jurisdiction if he could convict me before they were heard.

CR: 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.

JCT: On the facts, not the defence argument.

CR: THE COURT: There's no other evidence to be called on the
issue. (Emphasis added.)

JCT: And because there is no other evidence to be called on
the issue doesn't mean there is no other argument to be made
on the issue. (Emphasis added.)

CR: 13. As the above passage outlines in great detail, the
Applicant was given ample opportunity to raise any defence
he wished,

JCT: Any evidence I wished,

CR: but failed to do so.

JCT: Because the judge skipped the defence argument and
constitutional challenge parts of the defence.

CR: On March 10 2006 (after having previously provided with
written submissions by the Applicant and the Crown)

JCT: On the Motion to quash pre-trial, not the trial
arguments yet.

CR: the trial judge released a written judgment where he
found that the Applicant was charged with an offence known
to law

JCT: Now that my motion to quash had been dismissed and I
was going to have to defend against the charge was the time
to file my Constitutional Challenge. Then if the prohibition
isn't struck down, my defence arguments to the facts. But..

CR: and that because the Crown's case was admitted the
Applicant was guilty.

JCT: Because the Crown's facts were admitted, no need for
any defence, so skip to judgment.

CR: After his finding of guilt,

JCT: Completely unexpected when handed down with the
decision on the pre-trial motion to quash..

CR: and without notice to the Crown or the court, the
Applicant requested that the trial judge hear a
constitutional application

JCT: But at least I did have it ready for when I was
supposed to start Step 2 after the pre-trial motion was
over. But the judge had skipped Steps 2 and 3 in the defence
to issue judgment.

CR: The trial judge, quite properly, refused to hear the
application concluding that "there are rules of court and
you don't make an application at this late date without any
form of notice to anybody."

JCT: He's the guy who put things out of whack by starting
the trial before making his ruling on the pre-trial motion
to quash. From pre-trial to conviction with no defence in
between is the result, no matter that he got his conviction
registered before I had a chance to get my defence in.

CR: 14. The Court of Appeal for Ontario agreed with the
trial judge and its decision reveals no error.

JCT: They treated all three appeals in one process though
three different judgments still had to be issued and all
three are now being appealed. Does anyone really think they
got the facts straight? They're lawyers, the bottom of the
logic and mathematics barrel. So Justices Labrosse, Sharpe
and Blair think skipping from pre-plea motion to conviction
is okay. Now to get 3 Supremes on the same lampoon. Hoisted
on their own petards. Nyuk nyuk nyuk nyuk nyuk.

CR: 15. In any event, the Applicant's propose argument that
the possession of marijuana as a form of "preventative
medical use" has already been dismissed by the Court of
Appeal for Ontario in the decision of Hitzig v. Canada,
supra. The Applicant (who was as party to the appeal in
Hitzig)

JCT: Hitzig was trying to fix the exemption, I was trying to
prove the prohibition died on Terry Parker Day 2001. But
linking us lets the news of Alan Young's fight to fix the
exemption system drown out the news of John Turmel's fight
to kill the prohibition. So the Crown may not now how my
case differed from the medical users' case.

CR: claimed that the criminal prohibition of possession of
marihuana in section 4 of the CDSA was "genocide" because it
prohibited healthy Canadians from using marijuana to prevent
the onset of serious medical conditions such as epilepsy.

JCT: Sure that was my claim but the case had to do with
whether the MMAR exemption had saved the CDSA prohibition on
time and the court ruled it had not forcing the Crown to
drop all remaining 4000 possession charges across Canada.
Preventative use was always the constitutional challenge I
would have to raise if and when the court refused to quash
the charges as no longer known to law.

CR: 16. The Court of Appeal held that there was no medical
evidence presented that the smoking of marijuana by healthy
individuals had any prophylactic effect whatsoever

JCT: And now we've found that the Dr. Donald Tashkin, the
researcher who'd said marijuana causes lung cancer, has
reversed himself and provides evidence that it seems "to
have some protective effect." The clutz judges couldn't
follow the logical deduction that the engineer could and now
I've been proven right again the low-tech satraps wrong
again. Aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

CR: and that section 4 of the CDSA was only overbroad to the
extent that it applied to those who already had a serious
medical condition.

JCT: Judicial thinking, the beneficial effects only applied
to those who already had a serious medical condition. Nice
to see their errors exposed just on time. And the the Crown
to use their now-proven-wrong opinion here gives me the
chance to raise this new evidence in rebuttal!!

CR: 17. Having introduced no evidence to the Court of Appeal
for Ontario in 2003 that he had a serious medical condition
and that the marijuana he possessed was to treat such a
condition,

JCT: Notice the regular argument that the healthy guy isn't
sick. It just never dawns on them that their own line is
misleading them. The healthy guy wasn't claiming medical
need in this Parker Day Invalidation appeal, the healthy guy
was claiming the Invalidation for everyone, healthy too.

CR: there is every reason to believe that the Applicant's
argument that marijuana possession for preventative reasons
was doomed to failure.

JCT: Luckily, I had no medical need argument in seeking the
Terry Parker Day declaration. But if the Crown repeats
enough, the Court might be swayed. Har har.

CR: C. Should The Judge Have Permitted The Applicant To
Raise The Defence of Necessity Or The Defence Of No Intent
To Traffic Only An Intent To Permit Inspection

JCT: Keep in mind that when Ray Turmel tried to raise the
Necessity defence to grow for his sick wife, the judge
wouldn't allow it. Judges often disallow some defences.
Here, the Crown makes is sound like the judge dismissed my
request for these two defences when he actually refused my
request to put on any defence at all.

CR: 18. The response to this proposed ground of appeal is
subsumed in the preceding paragraphs. The Applicant is also
raising these defences for the first time on appeal.

JCT: Because the judge skipped them at the trial.

CR: The Applicant ought not be permitted to do so.

JCT: The judge ought not be permitted to skip to judgment so
too.

CR: As Justice L'Heureux-Dube stated in R. v. Brown [1993] 2
S.C.R. 918 at pp.923-924:
<<... the general prohibition against new argument on appeal
supports the overarching societal interests in the finality
of litigation in criminal matters.

JCT: Except the ground of the appeal is the denial of
opportunity to raise the defences below so raising them
above should not be affected by some general prohibition.

CR: Were there to be limits on the issues that may be raised
on appeal, such finality would become an illusion.

JCT: Of course, here the whole issue is about failure to get
the defence in below, not attempting to get new defence in
above.

CR: Both the Crown and the Defence would face uncertainty as
counsel for both sides, having discovered that the strategy
adopted at trial did not result in the desired or expected
verdict, devised new approaches.

JCT: Again, this was not a new defence approach after an old
defence approach had been defeated, it's the old defence
approach that never got heard below.

CR: Costs would escalate and the resolution of criminal
matters could be spread out over years in the most routine
cases. Moveover, society's expectation that criminal matters
will be disposed of fairly and fully at the first instance
and its respect for the administration of justice would be
undermined. Juries would rightfully be uncertain if they
were fulfilling an important societal function or merely
wasting their time. For these reasons, courts have always
adhered closely to the rule that such tactics will not be
permitted.>>

JCT: Again, these are not new defences raised at the top,
they are the old ones not raised below. Quite the
difference.

CR: 19. It bears repeating, the Applicant admitted that he
possessed marihuana for the purpose of trafficking

JCT: No, for the purpose permitting inspection.

CR: and his core submission at trial was that he was not
charged with an offence known to law.

JCT: At pre-trial. A Section 601 "unknown to law" motion to
quash isn't raised at trial. I didn't get any chance to
present any defence at trial. I only got the chance to
present this at pre-trial. Why can't lawyers ever keep
things straight?

CR: 20. The Applicant's claim regarding the defence of
necessity finds no support in the evidence.

JCT: That's it's good medicine for all these illnesses once
you've got them is not evidence that it's good as you're
getting them?

CR: As set out above, courts have already rejected the
Applicant's position that possession of marihuana has a
prophylactic effect on healthy Canadians including the
Applicant.

JCT: Don't the low-techs sound stupid now that Dr. Tashkin
has reversed his opinion?

CR: There is no evidence that the Applicant is in serious
medical need of cannabis marihuana to treat a medical
condition.

JCT: And I don't want to wait until there is.

CR: 21. The Applicant's claim regarding his intent is also
without merit. The offence of trafficking can encompass such
diverse activities as the sale, administering or
transportation of drugs. When the Applicant wrote the
following letter to the Department of Justice, he clearly
set out his intention to distribute marihuana:

JCT: For inspection, not sale or use.

CR: <<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 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.>>

D. This Application Raises no Issue of Public Importance

CR: 22. The law regarding the prohibition against possession
of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking is well settled.

JCT: Settled by the second R. v. Turmel Prohibition of
Prosecution appeal in which the court said they didn't have
enough judges for them not to be bound by the first R. v.
Turmel Prohibition appeal whose application for leave to
appeal to the Supreme Court was aborted by Justice Binnie
for getting one document in late?

CR: For approximately three years, the Applicant evaded a
trial on the merits

JCT: Just wanting to check the charge is valid before
wasting my time on defence against an invalid statute.

CR: by obtaining injunctions against prosecution in the
Superior Court of Justice disguised in the form of
prohibition or certiorari. Each of the applications was
properly dismissed and the trial judge's judgment in
convicting the Applicant reveals no error.

JCT: Always switching the time-frames. Those challenges to
the judge's jurisdiction were not dismissed and then I was
convicted, the judge rushed to convict before the appeals
against his jurisdiction could be heard. But if they want to
keep repeating the false timeline, I can keep repeating the
true one.

CR: The appeal from conviction was properly dismissed by the
Court of Appeal for Ontario.

JCT: This is argument? It's a wish list.

CR: This application is not deserving of the court's
attention.

JCT: The application of the engineer who proved all of
Canada's lawyers and judges wrong the last time isn't worthy
of attention, just because.

CR: 23. Manifestly, this application is an attempt by the
Applicant to advance the same startling proposition that he
made before the courts below. The Applicant is an
experienced litigant. He had every opportunity to raise any
defence he wanted to before the trial judge.

JCT: One whole issue here is that I did not.

CR: As the Applicant noted, having admitted the Crown's case
at trial

JCT: The Crown's facts... before the trial I never got.

CR: if his argument that he was not charged with an offence
known to law failed, a conviction was inevitable.

JCT: No, it was likely but defence could still prevail.

CR: It lies ill in his mouth to now complain that he was
never given an opportunity to raise other arguments
regarding the charge.

JCT: I guess it looks that way if you ignore that the judge
skipped from pre-trial to conviction without nothing in
between where a defence should have been.

CR: Given the history of the matter, there is every reason
to believe that these additional arguments are without
merit.

JCT: Given the history that I won the acquittal of 4000
Canadians because only I and none of Canada's judges or
lawyers knew the law was dead, it would seem that there is
every reason to believe that the additional argument have
merit.

CR: Leave to appeal should be refused.

PART IV - SUBMISSIONS CONCERNING COSTS

24. The respondent does not seek costs.

PART V - ORDER REQUESTED

25. The respondent requests that the application for leave
to appeal be dismissed.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Dated at Toronto this 23rd day of May 2007.
Brian G. Puddington
Counsel for the Respondent
Attorney General of Canada.



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

JCT: Again, the Crown sometimes confuses this appeal for a
jury trial with the conviction appeal #32013.

File Number: #32012
                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
       (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO)

BETWEEN:
                        John C. Turmel

                                                    Applicant
                                          Appellant in appeal
                             and

                    Her Majesty The Queen

                                                   Respondent
                                         Respondent in appeal

                Response to Leave Application
                    Her Majesty The Queen
                    (Pursuant to Rule 27)

PART I - RESPONDENT'S STATEMENT OF FACTS

Overview of the Respondent's Position

1. On May 14 2003, the Applicant faxed a letter to the
Department of Justice stating that he had marihuana that he
was going to drop off at various locations in Ottawa,
including Parliament Hill, the Prime Minister's office, the
Attorney General of Canada and to this Court. The Applicant
was arrested on Parliament Hill that same day while holding
a bag containing approximately 3.3 kilograms of marijuana
packaged in 7 bags. He was charged with possession of
marihuana for the purposes of trafficking pursuant to
section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
(CDSA).

2. The Crown proceeded on an information alleging that the
Applicant "unlawfully did, for the purpose of trafficking,
possess a substance included in schedule II of the CDSA, to
wit, an amount "not exceeding" 3 kg's of Cannabis Marijuana,
contrary to section 5(2) of the said Act.

3. Although the offence under section 5(4) of the CDSA is an
indictable offence, it falls within the category of
"absolute discretion" offences established in section
553(c)(xi) of the Criminal Code. Thus, the Applicant's trial
occurred in the Ontario Court of Justice before a judge
alone.

JCT: For amounts "not exceeding" 3Kg, a judge alone has
jurisdiction. For  amounts "exceeding" 3Kg, it's an offence
under Section 5(3) not 5(4) and an accused facing life
imprisonment may elect between a jury trial or judge alone.
By misrepresent the amount on the indictment, the Crown can
deny me a jury trial. One little "not." One little lie.

4. The Applicant was convicted by Belanger J. of the Ontario
Court of Justice on March 10 2006. The Applicant admitted
the facts but advanced the startling proposition that he was
not charged with an offence known to law.

5. The Applicant complains that he was deprived of a jury
trial. In his view, he "did the crime on purpose for the
purpose of getting a jury to discuss and decide on my
situation..." Prior to the trial, he brought an application
before the Ontario Court of Justice complaining that since
he was in possession of an amount of marijuana greater than
3 kilograms, he should have an election as to his mode of
trial because section 553 did not apply. This application
was dismissed by Wright J. of the Ontario Court of Justice
on April 19 2005.

6. An appeal of Wright's decision was brought in the
Superior Court of Justice before MacLeod J. in the form of
certiorari. This appeal was dismissed on November 28 2005 as
the court could find no jurisdictional error made by Wright
J. A further appeal of this decision was dismissed by the
Court of Appeal for Ontario on February 23 2007.

7. By the time the appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal
on Feb 23 2007, the appeal from the decision of MacLeod was
moot, as the Applicant had already been convicted on the
charge before the trial judge on March 10 2006.

JCT: Notice that proper English would have said: the appeal
became moot once the Appellant was convicted. That's right.
The three highest judges in Ontario said they had been
overruled by one judge below them. When Judge Belanger acted
before waiting for their decision on his jurisdiction, it
removed any power they had over him. Har har har har.
Justice in Wonderland. 3 highest judges power mooted by one
lower one!

Accordingly, the Applicant's appeal on this issue was
dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

JCT: Ontario highest 3-judge panel being overruled on
whether the judge below had jurisdiction by the lower court
judge going forward before they could rule! Har har har. It
never fails to amuse how irrational judges, no matter how
high, can be.

The Applicant now asks this court to revisit the issue

JCT: What never got dealt with.

even though it was not raised before the trial judge.

JCT: There was no chance once the judge decided to skip the
defence part of my trial.

This application ought to be dismissed for the following
reasons:
i) The application has no merit;
ii) The issues raised are not of national or public
importance.

JCT: Sure, a falsehood on the face of the indictment isn't
very important to the judiciary. Lies are permitted on
charges, everyone should know that!

PART II - QUESTION IN ISSUE

8. The Notice of Application appears to pose essentially one
question: i) Can the court review the discretion of the
Crown to proceed on a charge of possession for the purpose
of trafficking marihuana in an amount less than 3 kilograms
when the evidence discloses that the marihuana was more than
3 kilograms?

9. The Respondent submits that the foregoing question ought
to be answered in the negative as absent a finding of abuse
of process, the court can not review the discretion of the
Crown to proceed on a charge of possession for the purpose
of trafficking marihuana in an amount less than 3 kilograms.

PART III - ARGUMENT

A. The Application Has No Merit Because Absent Evidence Of
An Abuse Of Process, The Crown Has The Ultimate Discretion
To Decide On What Charges To Proceed

JCT: Discretion for charges on a given set of facts, not a
different set of facts. One corpse offers the choice between
Pre-medicated Murder One, Non-pre-medicated Murder Two,
Negligent Manslaughter Three. But "more than 3Kg" does not
offer the choice between "Over" or "Not Over." My case is
that the Crown has discretion with respect to different
charges based on a set of facts, but not discretion about a
different set of facts. A different set of facts is a lie.
The Crown's discretion is not to lie or not but the
discretion to select the charge that applies to the facts.
So my issue is clearly stated though the Crown never claims
discretion over facts, just charges.

10. Absent an abuse of process,

JCT: I wonder if denying me a jury trial when I'm due one
because the matter in question is in an amount greater than
3 kilograms could be called an abuse of process. Why not? So
it is. And so it is not "absent..."

the law is clear that the Crown has the discretion to
proceed with its case in a manner and on the charges it sees
fit.

JCT: Does the Crown's discretion on the charges also mean
discretion on the facts? We'll see.

11. The Crown must use its discretion on a daily basis to
decide important issues.

JCT: Notice the Crown keeps referring only to their
discretion on selecting the charges but never actually
responds on their discretion on selecting the facts. The
review is on their selection of facts.

As this court recognized in R v. Beare [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387
and reiterated in R. v. Regan [2002] 1 S.C.R. 297 at para.
166:

JCT: Remember, I'm not challenging their discretion as to
charges related to a set of facts, I'm challenging their
discretion to misrepresent the facts.

"... a system which did not confer a broad discretion on law
enforcement and prosecutorial authorities would be
unworkable, per La Forest J. at p410:
<<Discretion is an essential feature of the criminal justice
system. A system that attempted to eliminate discretion
would be unworkably complex and rigid.

JCT: Remember, I'm not trying to eliminate discretion on
charges on a set of facts, I'm objecting to discretion to
alter the facts.

Police necessarily exercise discretion in deciding when to
lay charges, to arrest and to conduct incidental searches,
as prosecutors do in deciding whether or not to withdraw a
charge, enter a stay, consent to an adjournment, proceed by
way of indictment or summary conviction, launch an appeal
and so on.>.

JCT: They sure do have a lot of acknowledged discretions
don't they? 1) Discretion to lay charges, 2) discretion to
arrest and 3) discretion to conduct incidental searches, 4)
discretion as prosecutors do in deciding whether or not to
withdraw a charge, 5) discretion to enter a stay, 6)
discretion to consent to an adjournment, 7) discretion to
proceed by way of indictment or summary conviction, 8)
discretion to launch an appeal and 9) so on. But nowhere
does he actually mention discretion to allege false facts!

12. This discretion, absent an abuse of process, should not
be subject to review by the courts.

JCT: Improperly usurped discretion on misrepresenting facts
should be.

As this court stated in Krieger v. Law Society of Alberta
[2002] 3 S.C.R. 372 at para. 32:
<<The court's acknowledgment of the Attorney General's
independence from judicial review in the sphere of
prosecutorial discretion has its strongest source in the
fundamental principle of the rule of law under our
Constitution.

JCT: Discretion on charges relating to facts, not discretion
as to facts, though it seems presumed they don't do that.
But what if they did? What if they have?

Subject to the abuse of process doctrine, supervising one
litigant's decision-making process - rather than the conduct
of the litigants before the court - is beyond the legitimate
reach of the court.

JCT: Okay, then it's an abuse of process to use discretion
to misrepresent the facts of the offence.

In Hoem v. Law Society of B.C. (1985) 20 C.C.C. (3d) 239, 20
D.L.R. (4th) 433 (B.C.C.A.), Esson J.A. for the court
observed, at p. 254, that: The independence of the Attorney
General, in deciding fairly who should be prosecuted, is
also a hallmark of a free society. Just as the independence
of the bar within its proper sphere

JCT: Bingo. Discretion "within its proper sphere."

must be respect, so must the independence of the Attorney-
General.

JCT: "within its proper sphere!!!"

We agree with these comments. The quasi-judicial function of
the Attorney General cannot be subjected to interference
from parties who are not as competent to consider the
various factors involved in making a decision to prosecute.

JCT: But is subject to interference when all parties are
competent to consider the various "facts" upon which the
decision to prosecute is being made.

To subject such decisions to political interference or to
judicial supervision could erode the integrity of our system
of prosecution.

JCT: So they should be left alone on their discretion as to
different charges related to facts and not left alone on
their non-discretion as to offering different facts.

Clearly drawn constitutional lines are necessary in areas
subject to such grave potential conflict.>>

JCT: And clearly drawn lines of fact are also necessary.

13. With any allegation of abuse of process,

JCT: Misrepresenting the facts...

it is the accused who bears the onus of proof that the
Crown's exercise of discretion amounts to an abuse of
process.

JCT: I thought pointing out there was a lie on the
indictment that could be corrected by deleting the "not"
from "not exceeding 3Kg" was pretty simple proof when their
own evidence had the amount as 3.277 Kg. Guess they need
more than just a misrepresentation on the indictment.

15. There is absolutely no evidence that the Crown, in
proceeding on an information alleging less than 3 kilograms
of marihuana (when the facts disclosed possession of over 3
kilograms) was acting in an abusive manner.

JCT: Doing and admitting it is the evidence.

Given that the arguments in this case involved a legal
dispute (i.e. was the application charged with an offence
known to law) and not a factual dispute, the decision of the
Crown to proceed with a charge of less than 3 kilograms was
entirely appropriate.

JCT: The Supreme Court will get to sign off on whether
alleging a false fact is acting in an abusive manner or not.

B. This issue raises no issue of public importance

JCT: Challenging the Crown's discretion as to facts but not
to all the discretions listed above is of public importance.

15. The Applicant, an experienced litigant, admitted the
Crown's case and he was properly convicted.

JCT: Admitting the facts is not admitting the case and the
propriety of the conviction is being raised in appeal
#32013, not this #32012 for the election of trial mode.

While the Applicant's complaints as to jurisdiction and
exercise of the Crown's discretion are without merit, they
should have been made to the trial judge. In fact, the
Applicant could have asked the trial judge to exercise his
discretion and invoke section 555 of the Criminal Code which
allows a provincial court judge to convert a trial to a
preliminary inquiry, thus allowing him to potentially argue
the case before a jury.

JCT: With more than 3Kg, he had no jurisdiction over me. So
why should I ask him for the favor. Besides, he skipped from
the pre-trial decision right to the conviction so there was
no opportunity to ask the judge to convert it once he had
dismissed the motion to quash and skipped my defence to
conviction. The lawyer keeps forgetting the judge going from
the pre-trial decision right to the conviction provided no
opportunity for the motion he suggests. Neat answer, eh? I
get to point out that I didn't ask for the trial to be
converted because the judge skipped the defence portion of
the trial. Har har har har.

16. A review of the Applicant's materials demonstrates that
his defence is premised on the starting proposition that
possession for the purpose of trafficking marijuana is not
an offence known to law.

JCT: In my first of three Supreme Court Appeals #32011 for
prohibition of prosecution under a still-invalid never-re-
enacted and certainly never court-resurrected law.

Permitting this type of litigation to be argued before a
jury would undermine the public's confidence in the criminal
justice system.

JCT: Prohibiting prosecution is not a jury issue. That's why
it is raised pre-trial. So this issue of prohibition can
never inconvenience a jury because it's not a jury issue.
Har har har har. A lawyer doesn't know this. And I get to
make a joke of it in my upcoming Reply. Har har har.

While in certain cases it may be appropriate to have a jury
trial, the fact that the Applicant's guilt or innocence is
of no particular public importance, the decision to proceed
with a charge in the absolute jurisdiction of the Ontario
Court of Justice was reasonable.

JCT: It was only because the charge was misrepresented as
"not exceeding 3Kg" that it could be held in the lower
Ontario Court of Justice. A true charge of "exceeding 3Kg"
would have had to be held in Superior Court. So it's
reasonable to misrepresent the amount because I'm not
important enough for a jury. At least they admit the lie was
to deny me the jury trial that I was due.

In his attempt to stall the proceedings by way of
certiorari,

JCT: Cheap shot. Asking for a jury of my peers they are
lying to cheat me out of is not stalling.

two judges agreed with the Crown's decision.

JCT: Five. Wright, MacLeod, Labrosse, Sharpe, Blair all
agreed they saw nothing wrong with alleging false facts on
the indictment. They should be ashamed. I just want to get
three Supremes to say so too! Har har har har.

Curiously, the Applicant did not raise the issue before the
trial judge.

JCT: Not curious if you realize the judge skipped the part
of the defence where I could have asked by handing down the
pre-trial decision on the motion to quash and conviction at
the same time.

He should not be permitted to review the matter afresh on
appeal.

JCT: The judge skipped my chance to do the matter in the
first place. I guess Crown Attorney Brian Puddington doesn't
make the connect from the next appeal #32013 where I
complain about Judge Belanger skipping the defence part of
my trial by presuming I had admitted the Crown's case when
I had only admitted the Crown's facts and opined it
would be big trouble to beat.

PART IV - SUBMISSIONS CONCERNING COSTS

17. The respondent does not seek costs.

PART V - ORDER REQUESTED

18. The respondent requests that the application for leave
to appeal be dismissed.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Dated at Toronto this 23rd day of May 2007.
Brian G. Puddington
Counsel for the Respondent
Attorney General of Canada.


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