>Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 10:56:28 +0000
>From: interselocean@...
>Subject: Film sur le sel
>To: interselocean@...

Pour ceux qui l'ont rate lors de son dernier passage:
"nature contre nature sur la 3 samedi a 14h30
a vos scpoes
Bonne fin d'annee

[Forthose who missed the last time it was on:
"Nature against nature" n channel 3 Saturday 2:30pm
(In France, no doubt.)

Can anyone make a copy and post it to youtube?
SVP, pourrait quelqu'un faire une copie et le poster a
Youtube?


--
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: On Nov 28 2007 Terry
was in Brampton to hear Judge S.F. Clements' decision on the
return of his marijuana which had been seized by Canada
Post. I couldn't make it.

He didn't get it back. The judge ruled he didn't have an
valid exemption. We'll have to appeal.


--
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: Sorry I haven't posted these developments earlier.

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

October 10 2007

Mr. John C. Turmel
8-37 Colborne East
Brantford, N3T 2G3

Dear Mr. Turmel

Re: John C. Turmel v. Her Majesty The Queen
File Nos: 32011, 32012, and 32013

This will acknowledge receipt of your motion for
reconsideration of the decisions of the Supreme Court
delivered on July 12 2007 dismissing your applications for
leave to appeal to this Court in file numbers 32011, 32012,
and 32013.

I wish to inform you that Mr. Drouin and Mr. Martin must
file their own motion for reconsiderations in file numbers
32009 and 32010.

Once your motion for reconsideration is reviewed, you will
be advised of its acceptance or rejection for filing by the
Registrar in due course.

Please do not hesitate to contact an officer of the Registry
Branch at 613-996-8666 if you have any questions concerning
this matter.

Yours truly,
Suzanne Sarrazin
Registry officer

Cc: Mr. Brian Puddington, Mr. Francois Lacasse

Note to the respondent(s):
A respondent is not required to respond to a motion for
reconsideration until the motion has been accepted for
filing. [Rule 73(5)]

JCT: Then the decision of the court..... clerk:

Supreme Court of Canada
October 30 2007

Mr. John C. Turmel
8-37 Colborne East
Brantford, N3T 2G3

Dear Mr. Turmel

Re: John C. Turmel v. Her Majesty The Queen
File Nos: 32011

I hereby acknowledge receipt of your motion for
reconsideration of the decision of the Supreme Court of
Canada rendered July 12 207 dismissing your application for
leave to appeal to this Court.

I wish to advise you that Rule 73 of the Rules of the
Supreme Court of Canada states that there shall be no
reconsideration of an application for leave to appeal unless
there are exceedingly rare circumstances that warrant
consideration by the Court. It also specifies that a motion
for reconsideration must include an affidavit setting out
the exceedingly rare circumstances of the case that warrant
consideration by the Court and an explanation of why the
issue was not previously raised.

I have reviewed your motion for reconsideration and your
affidavits in support. Your arguments therein do not
constitute those "rarest of cases" in which the Court would
vary an order denying leave. I therefore regret to inform
you that, in my opinion, your motion does not reveal the
"exceedingly rare circumstances" warranting reconsideration
by this Court.

I am therefore returning your documents.
Yours truly,
Anne Roland
Registrar

Cc: Mr. Brian Puddington, Mr. Francois Lacasse

JCT: So the biggest judicial scandals in Canadian history being
exposed by the new Long case don't qualify as rare enough
circumstances in the opinion of the registrar.

So with 4000 errors already exposed as just the tip of the
quarter-million "bogus convictions" iceberg, this biggest case in
Canadian history gets covered up by the learned opinion of the
court clerk.

Canadian Justice in Wonderland. Har har har har.

Now the appeals from the errors of the Supreme Court of
Canada have to go on to the Internet Court and soon Parliament of
Public Opinion.

The crimes of the Canadian bench and bar should make great TV.




--
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: Out of the blue, one of the other candidates backed me
up about Fuhrer Tim Philp having no right to bar me from the
Rogers TV debate for wearing my party button:

>Letter to the Editor
>Brantford Expositor
>Nov 19 2007
>Ejection violated Turmel's rights

RF: As a candidate in the recent provincial election, I have
to express my opinion about the ejection of John Turmel from
the Rogers TV debate. What the cameras and public did not
see was the meeting out in the hall. All six candidates
disagreed on some of the rules of this debate.

JCT: All six disagreed on Fuhrer Philp
1) getting to spend more time on topics of his choice;
2) getting to spend more time with candidates of his choice;
3) banning party buttons and visual aids as "unfair."

RF: My opinion is that the other five candidates had their
flyers and signs. Turmel only had his props. This I do
believe was very important for Turmel's campaign.

JCT: Being able to show show the documentation backing up my
startling claims is very important to my presentation. So
valuable, it's the reason Philp decided to ban them, to
impair my presentation since I was the only one using
visual aids. I know Fuhrer Philp was aiming at me when he
changed the rules to ban formerly permissible visual aids.

RF: Debates are simply that - debates about political
opinions, so why should Turmel be excluded based on opinion?

JCT: That great question that should also be put to Sandy
Hess, principal of the Pauline Johnson High School for
banning me for wanting to promote legalisation of a
beneficial herb. Philp wasn't trying to ban my opinions,
just impair my presentation. And when I wouldn't stand for
having my presentation impaired is when he resorted to the
ban.

RF: All of the other included candidates agreed the
exclusion of a registered candidate was not very democratic
and very unfair to Turmel's rights and freedoms as a
candidate.

JCT: Dave Levac may have made some noises that sounded like
he agreed excluding his opponent wasn't right but when it
came time to show some leadership, he blew it. He even led
me on to think that I was getting on to the Brantford
University Women's debate by setting up an extra table for
me to sit at but it was just to stop me from heckling him
until the police arrived to take his opponent away.

RF: It should be noted that independents have a good thing
going for them and the riding. They don't have to follow a
specific party's platform, which means they can bring up and
represent other issues.

JCT: In my case, I've had the same rigid party program for
almost a quarter century:
1) Cops out of gambling, sex, drugs and rock & roll
2) Interest-free credit card from the Bank of Canada.
See: http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/abprogs.htm

RF: I think Turmel is well educated and some of his ideas
deserve a listen. I think Turmel's rights were clearly
violated with the exclusion of him from most debates.

JCT: And yet, so few others seem to agree. Sad isn't it?

RF: He could have had more votes with more time in front of
people at the debate table.

JCT: What's funny is that they didn't even have to cheat me
so that I'd lose. Dave was going to win anyway. He had the
fleet of cars to drive his herd of unthinking sheople to the
polls to vote for "their Red Team." Dave didn't need to let
me be cheated. I wasn't cheated back in 2003 and he won.
He'd have still won. No, I don't think Dave let them cheat
me because he needed help to beat me, I think Dave let them
cheat me because he's a gutless wimp, like most politicians.
I can count on the fingers of one hand the major party
candidates who have stood up for a fair game and Dave isn't
one of them.

RF: I would certainly support any recommendations a higher
court may suggest.

JCT: Philp is saying I was ejected for interrupting the next
speaker without saying he'd cut me off for wearing my party
button. Having to hide the reason for his cutting me off in
their response to the CRTC sure does hint that they know
wearing a party button is not good enough reason for a rival
candidate to be denied an equitable share of the free time
pie.
Right? They wouldn't have hidden the fact that Philp cut me
off first because of the party button when they relied on
the new reason for excluding me, that of my interrupting
after I'd been cut off.

The CRTC fight does go on. I'm just waiting for the CRTC's
affidavit explaining why they didn't think they could do
anything until the cheating was officially uncorrectable.

And thanks Rob for speaking up.


--
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 know the Carotas, their book provided me much of my
religious argument.

>Subject: [ijccr] Usury and War
>by: "Ronald A. Miller" justron@... navyman3269436
>Date: Sun Nov 18, 2007 3:49 am ((PST))

RAM: Usury and War
Given the usurious state of our nation's current monetary
and banking system, it was great for the audience at
Northland Anti-War Coalition's forum, "Mobilizing People of
Faith Against War,"last Friday night to hear the response of
a Diocese of Duluth Catholic priest to his Church's policy
regarding the present-day Roman Catholic Church stand on
usury.

JCT: Bet no one defined the difference between usury and
excessive interest.

RAM: In contrast to Rev. Peter Lambert's response, Dr. Sabah
Alwan, a member of the Twin Ports Islamic Center and
Associate Professor CSS gave an excellent overview regarding
how his religion handles usury (they call it reba) in
today's corporate business world. Might usury, a sin against
God, be the underlying cause of the moral conflict going on
between the United States and other Islamic nation's that
view our monetary and banking system as sinful?

JCT: Could playing musical chairs to the death by the use of
"mort-gage" "death-gamble" rules be the cause of real
conflict going on everywhere?

RAM: Always curious about this issue and wanting to learn
more, I couldn't pass up the opportunity when, as a member
of Loaves and Fishes Catholic Worker in March 1994, I had
the honor of representing our community at a conference in
Malinalco, Mexico, sponsored by Mario and Estelle Carota of
Christian Economic Networks.

JCT: Hope you learned their lesson.

RAM: Since then, an excellent book on usury has been
produced by the Carotas that teaches the truth about usury
and how it is undermining the American experiment in
constitutional self-government by keeping the public in debt
bondage paying excessive interest on over $8 trillion worth
(part of it for the Iraq War) of public bonded debt,
mortgage loans and credit cards.
http://www.dsinet.com.mx/cen/

JCT: Debt slavery under the proverbial "yoke of oppression."

RAM: The following passage from this book entitled, USURY,
was excerpted here to illustrate how usury has changed in
recent history with the advent of Calvinist theology that
affirmed interest taking on money loaned for business
purposes to the elect and might have been offensive to Rev.
Lambert when I posed it to him during the forum.

JCT: Before they go on to explain how the Christian Clergy
has lost its way, the Carotas could never get the Pope to
listen, I'd point out that my indictment of the Christian
Clergy is not "hearing without hearing and seeing without
seeing," Jesus said they'd forever be hypnotized that way
when discussing interest-powered Mammon. Using interest-
powered poker chips makes people mental, so said Jesus.

"The original definition of usury is the taking of any money
over and above the principal of the loan. This was held by
the Catholic Church until 1821. Now, however, the modern
definition of usury is excessive interest. The problem is
how is excessive interest to be defined. It is a little
known fact that modern money lenders charge as much as 10%
to 50% per day. This amounts to annual rates running as high
as 2,000%. This is, incredibly, in a world where 65% of the
world's population earns less than $2000 per year. That is 4
billion people (Harvard Business Review, Sept. 2002)."

In addition to the sin of usury,

JCT: Now he's going to go off into a waste of time.
Involuntary unemployment and inflation are caused by usury,
nothing else, and bringing in non-relevant stuff hurts the
overall presentation.


RAM: the United States is also guilty of severing its dollar
in 1971 from the fixed weight of gold it promised (1944
Bretton Woods Agreement) when its dollar became the world's
reserve currency in the fixed exchange rate system used for
centuries that gave transparency and honesty to the
settlement of trade imbalances between nations. As U.S.
dollar inflation mounts, other nations are beginning to
consider using the more stable Euro as the world's reserve
currency in trade for oil.

JCT: You just have to read David Astle's Babylonian Woe or
my Book report to see how the gold standard of money has
worked throughout the millennia. The Carotas are speaking of
the "Time Standard of Money" (Google for it), not the gold
or silver or any other metal standard of money. Metallic
rock is irrelevant to the stability of the credits, the
chips, and the Carotas were not metal rock advocates.

RAM: With the natural limit of the just weight and measure
(Deut. 25:15) now missing from money through legal measures
in Congress,

JCT: No need to link to gold when linking to time is even
more stable.

RAM: the natural cost of the remaining yet unextracted
natural resources has been removed. They have become
artificially cheap and are no longer protected against the
predatory limited liability stock corporation's plunder for
their profit. Freed from the U.S. Constitution's constraint
of requiring states to not use anything but gold and silver
as a monetary measure of economic value, the high-tech rate
of extraction of these natural resources for commodity
production, including human labor, is increasing as the
effects of global warming loom on the horizon.

JCT: Or global cooling causing insufficient evaporation of
oceans to provide rain to replace the ice in the north...

RAM: It has caused leading environmentalists and politicians
to object to the increased rate of emissions coming from
automobiles and coal-fired electric generating plants that
is having the effect of shortening the life of God's good
creation whether it was created by intelligent design or
big-banged into existence. Minnesota Senator Yvonne Prettner
Solon joined ELCA Bishop Peter Strommen recently (10-28-07)
at a public forum entitled, "Global Warming Solutions," held
at the downtown Holiday Inn that featured Will Steger, polar
explorer. It appears as if the institutional church and
politicians are in bed with the usurers as the evil
experiment in bank-created fiat dollars monetized from
interest-bearing debt nears its end.

JCT: Since they insist on collateral before they issue loans
of money, there is no such thing as "fiat" unbacked money.
The church and politicians please the usurers no more than
the yellow-rock advocates.
Regardless, they accept that there's not enough money to
save ourselves and we can't spend more money without causing
Shift A inflation. But what if it's Shift B inflation?

RAM: Ever since the Northland Action for Peace and Justice
(NAPJ) started in 2001, I've been standing on the corner of
Lake Ave. and Superior St. 4:30PM Wednesdays holding a sign
that reads, "Put Money Back under Law" on one side and, "End
Corporate rule for Real Peace," on the other side. I hand
out a brochure that describes the American Liberty Dollar
(ALD), a dollar backed up by a fixed weight of silver and
gold.

JCT: He's picketing for the provocative Liberty Dollar
while, for 5 years, on Interest-rate-setting day, high noon
saw me on the corner of Bank and Wellington Streets in
Ottawa picketing the Bank of Canada and then across the
street at 2pm saw me picketing the House of Commons with my
sign that said "Abolish Interest Rates" on one side and
"INFLATION & UNEMPLOYMENT = r / (1+r), r= % interest
  SOLUTION r = 0% SOCIAL CREDIT."

I used to carry "HONK if Interest is Criminal" before the
police threatened to charge me with disturbing the peace.
So, I had no need to mention need for any rock, silver,
yellow, or in metal-money advocates' heads.

RAM: I've informed President Dave Ross of the Duluth Chamber
of Commerce about it and contacted several merchants, St.
Louis County Commissioners and city councilors including
Greg Gilbert about adopting it as a local currency in Duluth
as the Federal Reserve's dollar continues toward its
inflationary death.

JCT: Boy, after the busts for being too much like real
money, they must really be leery of you. That's what they
get for calling them dollars and not Hours.

RAM: During Sharla Gardner's victory party at Carmody's on
election night I approached outgoing city councilor Russ
Stewart about accepting silver in trade for his goods at his
Robin Goodfellow store. He said YES.

JCT: Sure, that's not illegal even if issuing them may be. .

RAM: Unfortunately, last Wednesday, the FBI and Secret
Service raided the Liberty Dollar organization and
confiscated all the gold and silver Liberty Dollars backed
by a fixed weight of gold, silver and copper they had in
stock ready to ship.

JCT: Har har har har. Ithaca Hours, Boulder Hours, they al
used paper tokens and no one raided them.

RAM: My order was among the Liberty Dollars they confiscated
so I've signed on to a class action lawsuit against the
federal government. For more on this story, go to:
www.libertydollar.org
http://www.nysun.com/article/66542?page_no=1
http://reason.com/blog/show/123553.html
Ronald A. Miller, www.myspace.com/realpeace3

JCT: Yes, join Ronald in raising funds to pay lawyers to
fight off the Feds until you go broke.

How sad to link the Carotas' fight to educate the Roman
Catholic Clergy to the Judas Goat sheep-dipped Liberty
Dollar gang? The Carotas were honest teachers against usury
to their unheeding church, abolitionists of usury, not
switchers to silver rock.


--
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: #4 Daniel Reeves says interest is simple but
>by: "Myro Ashenopolitus" new_economics@...
>Date: Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:44 am ((PDT))

"In the spreadsheet ALL of the principal issued remains in
circulation until used to make principal payments where it
is erased. You say that that sum is not all the money in
circulation and that there is more. I request that you show
us how and where that extra money comes from."
---
As I've already told you, it derives from their ability to
credit deposit accounts, the same as they do when they grant
loans.

JCT: They can get deposits not called loans from the tap?
Prove it.

MG: "Note, that by saying that the principal is not all
the money in circulation you are unwittingly admitting
that the principal is insufficient to pay both
principal and interest and that more is needed."
---
Of course the principal is insufficient.

JCT: So, once it's admitted that the bank expenses pipe is
not connected to the tap of new money but to the reservoir
of old money, "Of course the principal is insufficient."

M: Okay, let's look at your spreadsheet.  I've told you
that it needs a column to show the amounts being spent
into circulation by the banks.

JCT: Don't just say it. I bet you can't cite one book, one
spreadsheet.

M: Presumably, the principal or "balance" columns represent
the money being spent into circulation by the non-banks, and
the amounts being left in circulation from that spending
after each principal payment back to the banks.

JCT: Or, in my blueprint, disconnect the bank expenses from
the reservoir and connect it to the tap.

M: To calculate the money in circulation, you would have
to add a column indicating the money the bank has
spent into circulation...

JCT: If repetition made it so. How lucky we must be that
they provide enough money to completely settle the debt, to
eliminate inflation and unemployment. How lucky it works so
well.

M: I will assume that the amount that the bank has spent
into circulation during the first period is at LEAST
exactly equal to the amount due for interest at the
end of the first period, which I may safely do,
inasmuch as I know that banks, as with all firms, are
disbursing MORE than their sales, in a normally
expanding economy, as a statistical matter, yet are
booking a profit.

JCT: This is what the old Socreds wanted to do when interest
made the debt grow more than the money in circulation. Since
they didn't know the Ryan Rule of Bank spendings and didn't
know there was enough to make it all work, they thought
they're fix the problems they observed by balancing the
shortage caused the interest in exactly the same way Ryan
says the banks do it. Does that mean that since it hasn't
worked for the banks, it wouldn't have worked for Social
Credit too? Har har har.

M: So banks in actuality are spending more into circulation
than they are taking back for interest and other fees being
paid to them, which is what enables interest and other fees
to be paid to them.

JCT: If they can spend from the tap, why would they spend
from the reservoir at all? If you could print it up to
spend, why would use you use your already existing money?
He's telling us that they spend all their earnings in the
reservoir and then they take money out from the tap. Har har
har.
---

>Posted by: "Dont Panic" trudy_cool@... trudy_cool
>Date: Tue Aug 14, 2007 2:04 pm ((PDT))

--- Myro Ashenopolitus <new_economics@...> wrote:
> Your understanding is incorrect.  Who told you that?

TC: Please provide me with a URL to any reasonable authority
on banking that shows that a bank can use its money creation
capability to pay its bills.

JCT: Bet he hadn't responded. Ryan can never produce.

> M: That is not at all what the graph shows, but all
> payments by firms for salaries, wages, dividends and
> ordinary business expenses. The expensing of these
> disbursements is delayed through time through the rules of
> double entry accounting, so they are charged against
> future sales, which are prospectively greater than current
> disbursements

TC: That may be so, but it is completely irrelevant to the
issue under discussion, because in no way whatsoever do they
add to the existing stock of dollars in circulation.

JCT: If they did come from the new money tap, there would be
inflation or unemployment. But since they really come from
the old money reservoir, as Myro Ryan admits: "Of course the
principal is insufficient" to repay the principal and the
interest without the banks raiding the tap.

>> "The problem with your argument is that you have
>> widened the argument to pretend that the quantity of
>> circulating media of exchange includes bi-lateral
>> commercial credit. This is false."
> ---
> Modern money is not a medium of exchange but a
> generalized contract for future performance,

TC: Nonsense. If it isn't a medium of exchange what are we
using as a medium of exchange?

JCT: He says such silly things.

> utilizing the ticket metaphor, where the ticket is
> redeemed ultimately for goods and services.

Nonsense. Sure, each buyer redeems the tickets in his
possession with every transaction as the ticket passes on to
the seller. But the *final* act of redeeming (and retirement
from circulation) is the only one that is relevant to this
discussion and that happens only when a borrower pays down
the principal of a bank loan. There is absolutely no other
way for the ticket to be redeemed and withdrawn from
circulation.

JCT: Good point. Myro/Ryan keeps saying that that tap money
comes into circulation through bank spending but never
thought about how it should be withdrawn. It would have to
go down the "principal" hole.

> Banking facilitates entrepreneurial spending in advance of
> prospectively increasing sales,

TC: Using a mechanism that is fabulously expensive to the
marketplace for precisely the reasons John Turmel and Marc
Gauvin have explained.

> where profit is calculated according to the rules of
> double entry accounting.

TC: Irrelevant.

> The great flux of "tickets" given to final consumers in
> salaries, wages and dividends throughout the structure of
> production, reflux through sales over the retail counter.

TC: This sentence is worse than irrelevant, it says nothing
at all.

JCT: I'm not alone in noticing.
---

>Posted by: "Myro Ashenopolitus" new_economics@...
>Date: Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:20 pm ((PDT))

"Please provide me with a URL to any reasonable
authority on banking that shows that a bank can use
its money creation capability to pay its bills."
---
M: Since as it was YOU who used the word, "illegal," I would
think it is incumbent on YOU to supply an actual citation to
some statute book from some jurisdiction somewhere where
that practice is declared to be illegal. Or shut up.

JCT: Har har har. Myro claims Martians create our new money
and when challenged to prove it, he says that our failure to
prove that Martians don't create it is proof that it must be
created by Myro's Martians. The Pink Elephant syndrome.

M: Banks simply have the ability to credit their own
customers' deposit accounts, which are among their
liabilities, or write checks to anyone for any purpose
whatsoever, the only requirement being to redeem them in
legal tender on demand.

JCT: Now he's saying they borrow their spendings like
everyone. Before, they spent new money into existence debt-
free so it could be used to pay off the extra debt and now
it's spending new money into existence which they must later
pay back. Caught in a contradiction.

"If it isn't a medium of exchange what are we using as
a medium of exchange?"
---
Modern money does not function as a medium of exchange, so
the answer is that we are not using anything as a medium of
exchange.

JCT: Luckily, I'm not discussing whether money isn't a
medium of exchange.
---

>Posted by: "Dont Panic" trudy_cool@... trudy_cool
>Date: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:00 am ((PDT))

> "Please provide me with a URL
> -------------------------------------------
> Since as it was YOU who used the word, "illegal," I would
> think it is incumbent on YOU to supply an actual citation
> to some statute book from some jurisdiction somewhere
> where that practice is declared to be illegal. Or shut up.

TC: The original claim that banks spend money into
circulation was yours. I stated that I thought it was
illegal. I claimed nothing, I merely asked, politely I might
add, that you substantiate your claim.

JCT: And when he can't put up, and won't shut up, he tries
to turn the onus onto the winner of the debate.

> Modern money does not function as a medium of
> exchange, so the answer is that we are not using
> anything as a medium of exchange.

TC: In which case you are arguing that no exchange is taking
place, not a position I'd care to defend. Once again I'd
suggest you forget your theories and equations and think
about how things actually work.
---

>Posted by: "Myro Ashenopolitus" new_economics@...
>Date: Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:54 am ((PDT))

"TC: Meanwhile, the issue under discussion is the
redistributive effect from poor to rich of a particular type
of money created through interest bearing debt. Since
Douglas was strongly opposed to money created by that means,
and argued for other kinds, it is absurd to use his
arguments in an attempt to support what he opposed."
---
M: Since you are presenting yourself as being an expert on
what Douglas was opposed to, please point to where Douglas
even once expressed that he opposed bank loans or the
collection of interest on bank loans.  The fact is that he
was contemptuous of what he called "usury hunters." Myro

JCT: Sure, he was going to issue new debt-free money so
people could pay off their debts for which "Of course the
principal is insufficient." It didn't mean he approved of
taking from the poor to give to the rich, he just didn't
think we could do anything about the imbalance short of
compensating for it. We know we can turn the usury imbalance
to zero so I hope this is just another Ryan allegation he
can't back up about Major Douglas who thought compound
interest quite "not natural." And can find that. See my
books reports on Douglas at my site.

>Posted by: "Dont Panic" trudy_cool@... trudy_cool
>Date: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:16 am ((PDT))

>> TC: I suggest you try his wristwatch 'reality play' next
>> time you go to a party, and you and everyone present
>> will experience the reality of it."
> M: Not the reality of it.  It has no relevance to how
> loans and interest work in the real world.

TC: Clearly, you have never tried it.

JCT: Clearly.
---

>Posted by: "Myro Ashenopolitus" new_economics@...
>Date: Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:34 pm ((PDT))

Thanks for the reply. I'll read your "wristwatch scenario"
later, when I have more time. I'll briefly respond to some
of your other comments.

JCT: Of course he's visited the bankmath page. He made me
change part of it. I'd said that positive feedback was
undesirable and he pointed it out it was often desirable in
electronics. So I changed it to say that positive feedback
was unwanted in banking in case anyone else like him forgot
the topic under discussion happened to be banking. Har har
har. His one great victory.

M: New borrowing is not required to repay old borrowing,
inasmuch as the banks are spending money into
circulation in payment for the goods and services they
are receiving in reciprocal trade.  What they are
spending into circulation, in a normally expanding
economy, is more than enough money for the more
general community to pay interest and others fees back
to the banks.

JCT: Constant repetition may make it so. But it does focus
on the real issue. Are bank expenses from the reservoir or
the tap?
---

>Posted by: "Dont Panic" trudy_cool@... trudy_cool
>Date: Thu Aug 16, 2007 2:52 pm ((PDT))

> New borrowing is not required to repay old borrowing,
> inasmuch as the banks are spending money into
> circulation in payment for the goods and services they
> are receiving in reciprocal trade.

TC: Can you provide me with links to some reading material
that corroborates that? It clashes with everything I've
understood, so while I'm extremely skeptical, I'd like a
complete layman's explanation, if you have one, to see what
it is I'm missing.

JCT: He hasn't been able to back up anything so far.
---

>Posted by: "new_economics" new_economics@...
>Date: Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:29 am ((PDT))

"Can you provide me with links to some reading
material that corroborates that? It [meaning the idea
that banks spend money into circulation] clashes
with everything I've understood, so while I'm
extremely skeptical, I'd like a complete layman's
explanation, if you have one, to see what it is I'm
missing?
---
It is not really a difficult concept to understand.

JCT: Whether it's true or not is the issue, not whether it's
easy to understand. Yes it's easy to understand that you say
that bank expenses come from the tap. And easy to understand
that you can't back it up in a field of Economics Textbooks
that say only loans that have to be paid back come from the
tap.

The idea goes back to transcripts from the Scottish
Accounting debating societies of the late nineteenth
century, which we found in our research.  They are
published and available in better research libraries.
It is the concept of flux and reflux, where the flux is
spending by firms, and the reflux represents sales.
In an expanding economy the flux is always greater
than its simultaneous reflux, which may be drawn
as leading and lagging curves.  The flux is expensed
by delaying its curve such that it is matched against
future sales, which are prospectively greater than
today's disbursements, yielding an accounting
profit.  So you have three curves in the standard
accounting model from the late nineteenth century.
See the drawing at
http://www.geocities.com/new_economics/accounting_profit.gif

JCT: Maybe Scottish gobbledygook will convince us that the
bank expenses come from the tap and not the reservoir.
---

>Posted by: "Myro Ashenopolitus" new_economics@...
>Date: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:00 am ((PDT))

M: The fact is that banks, in a normally expanding economy,
are always spending MORE THAN ENOUGH money into circulation,
for salaries, wages, dividends and other business expenses,
to enable the general economy to pay interest plus other
fees back to the banks. Myro

JCT: The Social Credit solution of government issuing debt-
free money to balance the debt for interest beyond principal
has been in effect by banks issuing debt-free money to
balance it? Har har har. It's the only argument he has so
"Of course the principal is insufficient."
---

>Posted by: "dlwild" dlwild@... leonardo_wild
>Date: Fri Aug 24, 2007 10:12 pm ((PDT))

LW: On this thread of discussion ... whether banks make
money or not, sometimes I wonder if people do research at
all before they actually present opinions as facts. Go to
www.snb.ch, the official Swiss National Bank's website, and
look up: Home / Information about / Publications /
Publications about the SNB choose "The world of the national
bank," then look up on the subject BANKS (not money), and
there you will find the following text under the heading
"HOW BANKS INCREASE THE SUPPLY OF MONEY" as posted by a
bank... for all to view. You will find the following text:

> How banks increase the supply of money

JCT: But just because they don't say that bank spend new
money into circulation from the tap doesn't prove that
Ryan's wrong when he says they do. Only his failure to find
one citation that they do proves his wrong far more.

> Banks collect money from savers and lend it to borrowers.

JCT: Step 1 in Orwell's Doublethink, the ability to accept
two contradictory points of view as both true at the same
time,  that loans from from the old money savings reservoir.

> Through this intermediary role the banks create new money.

JCT: Step 2: Banks lend out newly-created money so that
loans are old savings from the reservoir at the same time as
new money from the tap. Can't be both. The Great doublethink
of Economics.

> Banks are therefore "money creators"....
> The money supply has therefore increased...

JCT: That's how loans equal new money from the tap. Ryan's
claiming bank expenses are new money from the tap too.
---

>Posted by: "Dont Panic" trudy_cool@... trudy_cool
>Date: Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:23 am ((PDT))

In short Myro, you have not succeeded in convincing me of
anything so far, and the validity of Turmel's model still
stands. Regards, Hasan

JCT: Right, he hasn't backed up what he's kept saying once.
---

>by: "Myro Ashenopolitus" new_economics@...
>Date: Thu Aug 30, 2007 7:42 am ((PDT))

"...the validity of Turmel's model still stands."
---
M: Please state "Turmel's model" in your own words so we
might discuss it from your perspective. Myro
---

>Posted by: "Dont Panic" trudy_cool@... trudy_cool
>Date: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:31 pm ((PDT))

That the creation of money by bank lending sets up a rat-
race dynamic in which there is always more money owing than
there is money available to cancel the debt.

JCT: Ryan said "bank spendings" solve the problem. What
problem? Myro accepted the problem being solved by bank
spendings was "the principal is insufficient." Has her
already forgotten what is being discussed or just being
stubbornly obtuse?
---

>by: "John C. Turmel" bc726@... johnturmel
>Date: Sat Sep 1, 2007 3:58 am ((PDT))

> M: Please state "Turmel's model" in your own words so we
> might discuss it from your perspective.  Myro

Jct: After all these years and you don't know Turmel's
model is an interest-free casino bank? I don't think you
could have proven your ineptitude more conclusively than not
knowing the Great Canadian Gambler was talking about poker
chips.

JCT: So finally, Daniel, you came over to ijccr looking for
an answer after discussions in another group. Have you found
it? The fact there has been no bet indicates you have.

You got your first 10 units of money for your loan out of
the ATM. When you paid back the first 5, and had 5 left,
there was no way to get the ATM to spend any of those
dollars like your friendly neighbor might. It's the fact
that your loan payment is destroyed, goes down the drain,
that makes it impossible for you to pay your interest
without recourse to off-island money.

I'm glad you didn't bet. I'm glad you found out why paying
off the interest isn't as easy as you originally thought.
Now, go back to that group and tell them what you learned
about the difference between lending and banking.

Unless you haven't learned in which case, say bet and we'll
arrange a forum of debate.


--
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: Okay, Daniel, by now you see that there's a problem
when you borrow from a bank that does not occur when you
borrow from a neighbor. When you borrow from the neighbor,
he can let you live by spending some money into circulation
or he can make you bankrupt by refusing to spend some. With
a bank, it's different. You must go broke. Bill Ryan aka
Silas Kline aka Peter Hogbreath aka Myro says there's a way
but could never produce a loan payment schedule. It hasn't
stopped him from shooting his mouth off though:

>Subject: [ijccr] Digest Number 1960
>Re: TURMEL: #4 Daniel Reeves says interest is simple but
>by: "Myro Ashenopolitus" new_economics@...
>Date: Fri Aug 10, 2007 8:44 pm ((PDT))

"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."
---
M: But it's not "outside money," John.

JCT: The bank issued 10 onto the island, the bank got back 5
from the island. There's only 5 left on the island. If it's
not coming in from the outside, where is it coming from?

M: But that's how you win your bet? Excluding the money that
the bankers spend back into circulation for salaries,
dividends and ordinary business expenses, with this card up
your sleeve, like the cheater that you are? That's
"bankmath"? Har Har Har Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk! You've lost the bet,
and the whole world can see. Live with it. Myro

JCT: The Banking Systems Engineer lost the bet? All you have
to do is go to watch the financial flows at the blueprint at
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/bankmath.htm to know I'm
right. Still, don't get too excited thinking that someone
else has finally won my bet which you were never able to do.
---

>Posted by: "Marc Gauvin" gauvin@... marc_gauvin
>Date: Sat Aug 11, 2007 12:05 am ((PDT))

MG: Myro, Take any standard bank loan schedule that uses
compound interest and show that with the principal issued
for that loan you can pay both principal + interest. I used
a standard spread sheet that you can find at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ijccr/files/  it is the
file called Ryan's example.xls.  All I did is to overlap the
same schedule so that a second loan starts at repayment
period 6 and ends 6 periods after the first as requested by
Mr. Ryan , I also added a column showing the remaining
balance in circulation after each principal payment of the
original payment and added the principal created in the
second loan.
The conclusion was that without new money and on the basis
of only the principal issued for those loans there is not
enough to pay both principal and interest even assuming that
100% of interest payments are made immediately available to
the system as is the case with the spreadsheet as it only
subtracts the principal paid not the interest, thus assuming
that the money created by the principal where ever it may be
in reality is available until and only until it has been
used to pay principal.
This is sufficient to prove John's point as he intends.

JCT: Bill "Myro" Ryan has never been able to provide a
payment schedule for his bank loan because Marc has.

MG: What is outstanding, is:
1) A clear explanation of how any money other than that born
of interest bearing debt is created and put into circulation

JCT: Ryan says bank spendings are new credits. I'd think
that would get them busted. Doesn't my poem say:
But if you printed to spend, the others would bewail,
They're call it counterfeiting and send you off to jail.
But what if government would let you print it up to lend,
With only what you can collect in interest to spend."
As my blueprint shows. Myro/Ryan says there's another pipe
from the tap issuing out from the banks as bank spendings
where I have bank spendings issuing out of the reservoir.
So, are bank spendings linked to the reservoir as I've drawn
or are they linked to a tap of new money as Ryan says.

MG: 2) How we can be sure that the amount of money created
in 1) above is sufficient to satisfy all the deficit created
by interest in all circumstances and across all loans at all
times.

JCT: The Social Credit Solution of issuing enough debt-free
money to balance the extra debt sure does entail a lot more
work and supervision that not letting the extra debt happen.

MG: 3) Answer the question why in heaven's name is it so
important to complicate everyone's life with interest and
the fine tuned expensive management and overhead not to
mention risk that performing 2) above entails? Look forward
to your response. Best Marc

JCT: Bet he'll never be able to have a good answer for
having the poor continue paying interest to the rich.
---

>Posted by: "John C. Turmel" bc726@...
>Date: Sat Aug 11, 2007 6:42 am ((PDT))

--- Myro Ashenopolitus <new_economics@...> wrote:
> But it's not "outside money," John.  But that's how
> you win your bet?  Excluding the money that the
> bankers spend back into circulation for salaries,
> dividends and ordinary business expenses, with this
> card up your sleeve, like the cheater that you are?

Jct: Knowing how the bank flows really work is cheating?
It's winning, but not cheating.

> That's "bankmath"?  Har Har Har Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk!

Jct: You never put up your money so who's still laughing?

> You've lost the bet, and the whole world can see.
> Live with it. Myro

Jct: Certitude from the guy who can't put the money
where his mouth is? Har Har Har Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk!
---

>Posted by: "Myro Ashenopolitus" new_economics@...
>Date: Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:39 pm ((PDT))

M: Marc, your conclusions don't follow from your
spreadsheet, which is a simple compilation of two
overlapping loans. Your error is assuming that remaining
principal is equal to the money in circulation, whereas the
money in circulation equals the remaining principal plus the
money the banks have spent into circulation during the
accounting period for salaries, wages, dividends, and
ordinary business expenses.

JCT: He says bank spendings come from a tap, not the
reservoir. Wanna bet?

M: During the very last period, the remaining principal from
the preceding period, plus the salaries, wages, dividends,
and ordinary business expenses spent by the banks during the
last period, exactly equal the principal plus interest due
to be paid at the end of the last period. Myro

JCT: The Social Credit movement proposed that the Government
spend new money in this way, debt-free, to solve inflation
and unemployment. Now pseudo-Socred Bill "Myro" Ryan says
that the banks are effecting the social credit solution of
balancing the lack of money repay both Principal and
Interest when all were only loaned the Principal by spending
new money into circulation debt-free. I've already agreed
that this Social Credit balancing act would work. I've only
pointed out that eliminating the imbalance at the start
eliminated the need for a balancing act at all. But Ryan now
argues that the banks have been using the Social Credit
solution all along, spending enough into circulation to
solve inflation and unemployment. Har har har har. Since we
still have inflation and unemployment, the social credit
solution can't be being used.
---

>Posted by: "Daniel Reeves" dreeves@... pegarmpaul
>Date: Sat Aug 11, 2007 10:53 pm ((PDT))

> 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."

DR: (for the 3rd time) "bet!" Graeme declined to hold my
US$100 in escrow but I'm good for it regardless. But it
sounds like you're backpedaling on the voting idea you
proposed. How else will the bet be resolved? In any case,
I'm glad to hear you respect my solution attempt (actually
more a concrete-ifying of someone else's response) and am
certainly curious what you think is wrong with it.
---

>by: "John C. Turmel" bc726@... johnturmel
>Date: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:45 am ((PDT))

--- In ijccr@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel Reeves" wrote:
> (for the 3rd time) "bet!" Graeme declined to hold my
> US$100 in escrow but I'm good for it regardless.

Jct: I just want to make sure you understand that you're not
borrowing the loan from your mother but from a bank. We're
discussing how the banking program malfunctions, not how
your mother could accept the interest in kind.

That's why I originally said you'd get the loan from a
bank ATM. We're discussing banking, not lending. If you
understand that you will be borrowing from a bank, and
let's say it's in Mexican Pesos, and making your payments
to the bank, even with your mama as bank manager to want
to help you for sure, then we can bet because we will end
up with a recorded payment schedule, as required to win
the bet because it's what the banksters can't do or
bet on no matter how much Myro and the moles support your
effort. So, for the fourth time, it's a bank loan under
banking lending rules. Bet?
---

>by: "Myro Ashenopolitus" new_economics@...
>Date: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:02 am ((PDT))

M: It's not banking lending rules as you allege them to be,
John, but as they actually are. Har har har. Nyuk nyuk nyuk!
Myro

JCT: Yes, another typical Ryan zinger. But until he proves
that the bank spendings don't come from the reservoir and do
come from the tap, I think I'll stick with how it's
explained in economics textbooks where none mention that
bank spendings are cause an increase in the money supply.
If bank spendings increase the money supply to make the
interest payable, somewhere, someone would have mentioned
it. Bet no one has because William B. Ryan's wrong again.
Also, notice how he can't show his face over at USENET any
more after making a fool of himself with a couple of years
of piss-boy posts he can't now stop.
---

>harnyuk Re: [ijccr] Re: TURMEL: #4 Daniel Reeves says
>Posted by: "ernie yacub" ernieyacub@... ernie_yacub
>Date: Sun Aug 12, 2007 9:08 am ((PDT))

EY: why don't you guys take this bullshit somewhere else? it
has absolutely nothing to do with cc, as in ijCCr, and it's
not even entertaining. it amazes me to no end that the
International Journal of Community Currency Research hosts
an egroup that diminishes it's reputation with every message
posted in this and numerous other similar threads in the
past. imagine a newbie trying to learn something about cc
going through the archives. har har har indeed ey

>Posted by: "John C. Turmel" bc726@...
>Date: Sun Aug 12, 2007 12:42 pm ((PDT))

> why don't you guys take this bullshit somewhere else?

Jct: Why can't you help yourself from reading it if it's so
not entertaining? And just because Ernie can't see why no
interest makes Community Currencies work doesn't mean others
aren't interested in learning how it relates to its
engineering efficiency. As for what a newbie can learn about
poker chips, reading Ernie's plaints doesn't contribute
much. The contribution from someone whose only input is try
to prevent others from reading what he doesn't want to read
is pretty dull. Of course, that's why Ernie's so in favor of
cancelling the ijccr discussion group with stuff Ernie
doesn't like to discuss and doesn't want anyone else
discussing either.
---

>Posted by: "Daniel Reeves" dreeves@... pegarmpaul
>Date: Sun Aug 12, 2007 9:51 am ((PDT))

DR: But what about the vote? Like you originally suggested,
we need some specific outcome to bet on. If it's "will John
eventually wear Daniel down with interminable physics
analogies", I don't like those odds! :)
It sounds like your counterargument is going to be that my
payment schedule depends on the bank spending the money as
you pay it back. That's true. But if it doesn't, that's even
better for the borrower (they're "in debt" forever but
there's nothing the bank can do about it).

JCT: Taking your pledged collateral isn't what I'd call
"nothing the bank can do about it.

DR: Can you construct a "desert island" scenario where a
sneaky lender does a savvy borrower any actual harm?

JCT: I did. I said that you borrowed Mexican pesos at
interest from your mother's ATM on your island and then you
do your best to pay it off to your ATM. By now, you've seen
the banking dilemma that wouldn't exist if your mama could
hold on to your payments.
---

Re: TURMEL: #4 Daniel Reeves says interest is simple but
by: "John C. Turmel" bc726@... johnturmel
Date: Sun Aug 12, 2007 12:44 pm ((PDT))

--- "Daniel Reeves" <dreeves@...> wrote:
> But what about the vote?
Jct: Sure, settle the vote right after we settle the bet.
---

>Posted by: "marc_gauvin" gauvin@... marc_gauvin
>Date: Sun Aug 12, 2007 3:57 pm ((PDT))
Myro, Shows us with a spreadsheet where the banks get the
money from that they spend. Note that the spreadsheet
(http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ijccr/files/  it is
"Ryan's example.xls") only removes principal as it is paid
not the interest so that the interest payments remain "in
circulation" and as such it is assumed that the banks spend
100% of the interest back. So if there is more than the
principal where does it come from? How do the banks get it?
Finally, if it is the old create money out of nowhere that
counts as new money. Thanks, Marc

JCT: Easier to ask if the Bank Expense pipe is connected to
the Reservoir or to the Tap.
---

>Posted by: "Myro Ashenopolitus" new_economics@...
>Date: Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:15 am ((PDT))

You are mis-describing your own spreadsheet, Marc. It does
not demonstrate what you think it demonstrates. It is simply
a rendering of two overlapping amortization schedules that
shows a zero balance at the end. Exactly as what is expected
in amortization schedules. Nowhere does it show the money
the banks are spending into circulation for salaries, wages,
dividends and ordinary business expenses as functioning
members of their community.

JCT: His magic financial flow to the rescue. My blueprint
shows that bank spendings from from the reservoir of
existing money, not the tap of new money. No Economics
textbook says the bank can print it up to spend.

M: Therefore the principal depicted as remaining due
throughout the schedule does not depict the totality of
money in circulation at each point in time, which includes
what the banks are lending into circulation, plus what they
are spending into circulation.

JCT: It really all does boil down to whether bank expenses
are spent from the reservoir of existing money or from the
tap of new money. I bet $100 reservoir. Myro will back down.
Need anyone say more?

M: It is really a very simple fallacy. And, where do the
banks get it? They get it from the same place as the money
they lend into circulation.

JCT: Is bank expenses also linked to the same tap as the
money they lend into circulation or from the reservoir. I
bet Myro's wrong.

M: Which is from their ability to credit their own liability
accounts, in this case, their customers' deposit accounts.

JCT: To debit a customer's account is to increase it. To
credit it is to decrease it. So, is it true that
they have the ability to decrease their customers' accounts
without having to put it back?

M: We call these credits money because they are generally
acceptable in transactions. Myro

JCT: If it were only true, they could easily end inflation
and employment, even bank panics, just by spending new money
into circulation. Har har har har. A history of bankruptcies
and only failure to buy something to get money into people's
accounts.
---

>Posted by: "Dont Panic" trudy_cool@... trudy_cool
>Date: Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:58 am ((PDT))

Myro wrote:
> No, because you're operating under the false
> assumption that the principal of loans constitutes the
> totality of money in circulation, whereas the actual
> fact is that the money in circulation also includes
> the money that the banks are spending into circulation.

TC: My understanding is that it is completely illegal for a
bank to "create" new money to pay its bills.

JCT: If you printed it to spend, the others would bewail,
They'd call it counterfeiting and send you off to jail.

TC: When a bank creates money by lending, the backing for
that new money is the collateral put forward by the
borrower. New dollars created to pay bills would not have
that backing, hence it being impermissible. If that isn't
what you are referring to, then I suppose are referring to
delay of payment --  as discussed below.

> The truth of the matter, in a normally expanding
> economy, the banks, like every other sector, are
> actually spending MORE into circulation, in salaries,
> wages, dividends and ordinary business expenses, than
> they are taking back through sales, which, in the case
> of banks, would be fees plus interest on loans. Yet
> they are recording a profit. That's how double entry
> accounting works in the macroeconomy. Transaction
> accounts are accumulating throughout the economy.

Companies that *consistently* spend more then they earn go
bust. They can do it in the short term by getting credit
terms from their suppliers, which is what your accrual
accounting graph shows. The problem with your argument is
that you have widened the argument to pretend that the
quantity of circulating media of exchange includes bi-
lateral commercial credit. This is false.
The heart of the issue of community currencies is
exploration of all possible variants of formalizing bi-
lateral commercial credit into de-centralized, autonomous,
multi-lateral, complementary media of exchange. Given that,
your argument is cynically dishonest in the context of this
forum.

JCT: Cynically dishonest is gentle.
---

>Posted by: "Todd Boyle" tboyle@... toddboyle
>Date: Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:39 am ((PDT))

At 08:46 AM 8/14/2007, you wrote:
>My understanding is that it is completely illegal for a ban
>to create new money to pay its bills.  When a bank creates
>money by lending, the backing for that new money is the
>collateral put forward by the borrower. New dollars created
>to pay bills would not have that backing, hence it being
>impermissible.  If that isn't what you are referring to,
>then I suppose are referring to delay of payment --  as
>discussed below.

TB: Commercial bank borrows from the fed on its own account,
at the discount rate, and makes a profit from the spread
when it lends at a higher rate.

JCT: But they're creating new money, not lending out old
savings, new credits, not old. Standard Economics error to
think that loans are newly created money to be lent out and
at the same time think they lend out their old deposits!
---

>by: "Myro Ashenopolitus" new_economics@...
>Date: Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:23 am ((PDT))

"My understanding is that it is completely illegal for
a bank to 'create' new money to pay its bills."
---
M: Your understanding is incorrect.

JCT: Bet $100 to $10 you can't prove it.

M: Who told you that?

JCT: Economics text books do not. Who told you?

M: The bank's requirement is to redeem deposits with legal
tender on demand. To meet anticipated demand for legal
tender, they keep fractional reserves against deposits,
allowing credit to expand with the needs of trade and
commerce.

JCT: Notice he didn't answer where it says banks can take
money from the tap instead of the reservoir.
---

[CONTINUED]

--
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 that we brought up the Long decision in
the Parker application for the return of his marijuana which
was seized by Canada Post. On the day after all my Supreme
Court of Canada applications that the law had never been
resurrected in 2003, Justice Borenstein ruled in R. v. Long
that the law had been invalidated again 2003 after the
resurrection.

http://yahoogroups.com/group/turmel/message/3385 is my post
"Parker needs factum on Long declaration of invalidity"
where I parsed Judge Borenstein's reasons for judgment.

Before going on to the Crown's argument against Long, here
is Borenstein J.'s final word on the remedy:

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2007/2007oncj341/2007oncj341.html
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2007/2007oncj341/2007oncj341.pdf

COURT FILE No.: Toronto
DATE: July 26, 2007
Citation: R. v. Long, 2007 ONCJ 341

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- AND -
CLIFFORD LONG

Before Justice H. Borenstein
Heard on March 28 and May 2, and July 26, 2007
Reasons for Judgment
July 26, 2007

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

BORENSTEIN J.:

[1] On July 13, 2007, I ruled that the medical marijuana
exemption created by the Government was unconstitutional as
reasonable access depended on policy rather than law. Given
my finding, the question of remedy arises. The matter was
adjourned at the Crown's request so that further submissions
could be made with respect to what remedy or result should
follow.

[2] If I had the jurisdiction to do so, I would read into
the regulation an obligation on the Government to provide
eligible persons[1] with reasonable access to the
Government's supply of marijuana. That is the way the
exemption is intended to, and does in fact, operate. Yet the
Government is resistant to taking on that legal obligation.

[3] As I indicated in my ruling, had the Government
obligated itself by law to supply marijuana to eligible
persons, the regulatory exemption would be constitutionally
acceptable. Reading in that obligation would be seamless and
consistent with the exemption scheme created by the
Government and would respect the rights and interests of
all. It would maintain the ability of the Government to
criminalize possession of marijuana and would also ensure
that eligible exempt persons would be legally entitled to
reasonable access to marijuana for medical purposes.

[4] Creating such an obligation does no harm to the scheme
created by the Government. It would not erode the
Government's ability to enhance access or to be flexible in
the implementation of this obligation. The Government can
continue a consultative approach to the issue of supplying
marijuana for medical purposes. It can continue to change
the policy to streamline and improve it. Details of what
amounts to reasonable access can continue to be developed
through policy. Complaints by eligible persons about the
reasonableness of their access could be determined in the
context of an existing obligation to provide reasonable
access, nothing more.

[5] In my view, we are well past the time in Parker where
the numerous options of dealing with this issue rendered
reading in an inappropriate remedy. The Government has
chosen the manner in which it seeks to address the issue of
a medical marijuana exemption.

[6] In my view, reading in an obligation to provide
reasonable access to eligible persons would be the most
appropriate remedy. However, only a Superior Court has that
declaratory power.

[7] Turning now to the issue of striking down section (4)1
of the CDSA.

[8] The Crown submits that I have no jurisdiction to declare
s. 4(1) of the CDSA unconstitutional. I can find it to be
unconstitutional but I cannot declare it to be
unconstitutional. My jurisdiction is to deal with the issues
presented in the case before me. General declaratory powers
are the exclusive jurisdiction of the Superior Courts.

[9] I am not declaring the criminal prohibition
unconstitutional. The Court of Appeal did that in Parker.

JCT: Parker happened on July 30 2000.

That Court stated that the criminal prohibition on
possession of marijuana is unconstitutional absent a
constitutionally acceptable medical exemption.

JCT: No, it did not. That Court just declared that the
prohibition in Section 4(1) of the CDSA was invalid. It was
the Hitzig Court that added the words "absent a
constitutionally acceptable medical exemption?" to make the
Parker ruling less final.

Given my finding that the Government has not enacted a
constitutionally acceptable exemption, then, in accordance
with Parker, the law prohibiting possession of marijuana is
unconstitutional.

JCT: And never has so the prohibition remains invalid since
Parker, like my argument to the Supreme Court that was
rejected.

[10] Mr. Long is charged with a law that is
unconstitutional.

JCT: So was everyone else.

Even though he himself is not in medical need of marijuana,
it is certainly open to him to challenge the law on the
basis that it is unconstitutional [2]

JCT: We all did that. Parker and Krieger proved that the law
was bad, we all proved that the law remains dead.

It is well within his right to argue that the current
criminal prohibition is unconstitutional as it fails to
provide a constitutional exemption for those in medical need
- even though he is not one of those persons. Having
succeeded, he cannot be found guilty of a law that is
unconstitutional. Therefore, the charges against him will be
dismissed.

JCT: This should have applied to everyone busted since then.

Released: July 26, 2007
Signed: Justice H. Borenstein
[1] Eligible, authorized ATP holders who do not obtain a
licence to produce.
[2] See Canada (Minister of Justice) v. Borowski (1981), 64
C.C.C. (2d) 97, 130 D.L.R. (3d) 588 (SCC);
R. v. J.P. 2003 CanLII 17492 (ON C.A.), (2003) 14 CR (6th)
69 (Ont. CA)

JCT: So that's the Borenstein ruling in R.v.Long which we
raised for Judge Clement who will be ruling in Parker's
claim for the return of his pot on Nov 28 in Brampton. I
just received the Crown's Factum.

I doubt Brian McAllister will publish the Crown's arguments
in Long on the net but since Chris Leafloor is one of the
Crown's Court of Appeal lawyers, this should be a preview of
the arguments to be presented in the Crown's appeal of Long:
(I transcribed the notes when they are raised.)

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

RESPONDENT'S FACTUM ON R. V. LONG

PART I - RESPONDENT'S STATEMENT AS TO FACTS

1. On July 23 2007, the Applicant filed supplementary
submissions which asserted that pursuant to R.v.Long1, the
prohibition on the possession of marihuana is not longer
valid. The Respondent now files the following written
submissions in response.
{1} R.v.Long, [2007] O.J. No. 2774 (Ont.Ct.) decision of
Borenstein J. released on July 13 2007, tab 1; decision on
remedy in R.v.Long [2007] O.J. No. 2916 (Ont.Ct.) released
July 26 2007, Tab 2; The Crown has appealed this decision
(Notice of appeal filed on August 22 2007) and the appeal is
likely to be heard in or around March or April 2008.

PART II - ISSUES AND LAW

Overview

2. R.v.Long is not binding on other courts. The trial judge
accepted the fact that although he had no jurisdiction to
make a finding of unconstitutionality, he did not have the
jurisdiction to grant a declaration of invalidity2.
{2} Decision on remedy in R.v.Long, para. 2 and 8-9, Tab 2.

3. R.v.Long is wrongly decided for the following reasons:

(a) THe finding in Long that the Government must assume an
"obligation" to supply marijuana in order to create a
Charter-compliant regime is contrary to the governing
Ontario Court of Appeal authorities in R.v.Parker and
R.v.Hitzig.

JCT: It's civil Hitzig v. HMTQ, not criminal R. v. Hitzig.

(b) The finding in Long that Charter compliance can only be
achieved through regulation is contrary to the decision of
the Supreme Court of Canada in "Little Sisters."

(a) The authorities do not require the government to assume
an obligation top supply marijuana

4. Section 7 Charter analysis takes place in three stages3:
{3} R. v. White (1999) 135 CCC (3d) 257 (S.C.C.) Tab 3

(a) Determining whether there is a real or imminent
deprivation of life, liberty, security of the person, or a
combination of these interests;
(b) Identifying and defining the relevant principle or
principles of fundamental justice;
(c) Determining whether the deprivation has occurred in
accordance with the relevant principle or principles of
fundamental justice.

5. The onus at "each" of these stages is on the party
asserting the Charter infringement4.
{4} Cunningham v. Canada (1993) 80 CCC (3d) 492 (SCC) Tab 4

6. Long itself contains no actual s.7 analysis. It depends
entirely on the s.7 analyses of the Court of Appeal for
Ontario in R.v.Parker5 and R.v.Hitzig6. As will be shown,
the conclusions in Long do not follow from the s.7 analyses
in Parker and Hitzig.

7. Terrance Parker used cannabis to alleviate the symptoms
of his severe epilepsy.

JCT: Actually, he used it for more than to alleviate the
symptoms, he used it to prevent seizures. Just the Crown
fudging the facts their way a bit.

The Court of Appeal found that the cannabis prohibition
deprived Mr. Parker of his s.7 rights to liberty and
security of the person in the following ways:

"[92] Accordingly, I believe that I am justified in
considering Parker's liberty interest in at least two ways.
First, the threat of criminal prosecution and possible
imprisonment itself amounts to a risk of deprivation of
liberty and therefore must accord with the principles of
fundamental justice.  Second, as this case arises in the
criminal law context (in that the state seeks to limit a
person's choice of treatment through threat of criminal
prosecution), "liberty includes the right to make decisions
of fundamental personal importance." Deprivation of this
right must also accord with the principles of fundamental
justice. I have little difficulty in concluding that "the
choice of medication to alleviate the effects of an illness
with life-threatening consequences is such a decision."
[emphasis added]
[...
"[97]... Deprivation by means of criminal sanction of access
to medication reasonably required for the treatment of a
medical condition that threatens life or health constitutes
a deprivation of security of the person8."
{8} R.v.Parker [2000] para. 97 Tab 5

8. The Court's focus was on serious medical need. It found
that the system in place at the time for accommodating such
serious medical need9
{9} This system relied on an interim policy under which the
Minister of Health could receive requests to exercise his
discretion under s.56 of the CDSA to provide an exemption
from the cannabis prohibition.

did not accord with the principles of fundamental justice
for the following reasons10:
{10} R. v. Parker [2000] para. 184-185, Tab 5

"[184] In view of "the lack of an adequate legislated
standard for medical necessity and the vesting of an
unfettered discretion in the Minister," the deprivation of
Parker's right to security of the person does not accord
with the principles of fundamental justice.
"[185] In effect, whether or not Parker will be deprived of
his security of the person is entirely dependent upon the
exercise of ministerial discretion. While this may be a
sufficient legislative scheme for regulating access to
marihuana for scientific purposes, it does not accord with
fundamental justice where security of the person is at
stake. [emphasis added]

9. The government responded to these concerns by enacting
the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) which
provide both a detailed legislated standard for medical
necessity and a structured formal process for the exercise
of the Minister's discretion. Under the MMAR an applicant
demonstrating a medical need for cannabis and satisfying the
requirements of the application process is granted an
authorization to possess cannabis for medical use (ATP). The
applicant or caregiver can also apply for a license - a
personal use production license (PPL) or a designated-person
production license (DPL) - to cultivate cannabis for the
ATP-holder's medical use.

10. Approximately three years after its decision in Parker
the Court of Appeal considered the constitutionality of the
MMAR in R. v. Hitzig et al. The main issue in Hitzig as it
relates to Long was whether the MMAR adequately provided for
lawful access to cannabis for medical use. There was
evidence that the DPL provisions were not effective for all
ATP-holders and that it was necessary for some ATP-holders
to obtain cannabis from illegal suppliers. By the time
Hitzig was argued in the Court of Appeal Health Canada had
put into place an interim policy of providing cannabis to
some ATP-holders itself.12
{12} See R.v.Long at para.34-35. It is important to note
that the interim supply policy was only before the Court of
Appeal in Hitzig for the purpose of context for the Court -
see R. v. Hitzig at para 43:
[43] The Government did not ask the court to pass on the
constitutionality of the MMAR as modified by the interim
policy and it did not suggest that the interim policy should
have any effect on the outcome of the appeal. The interim
policy was put before the court so that we would be aware of
the current state of affairs."

11. In its s.7 analysis the Court of Appeal in Hitzig
identified the Rule of Law as the primary applicable
principle of fundamental justice and held for the following
reasons that the MMAR did not accord with that principle:13
{13} R.v.Hitzig para.117-118 Tab 6

"[117] A Government scheme that depends on the criminal
element to deliver the medically necessary product, and that
drives those in need of that product to the black market
strikes at the same values that underlie the state's
obligation to obey the law. The MMAR, far from placing the
Government in the position of a positive role model or on
the moral high ground, are calculated to bring the law into
disrepute and devalue the worth and dignity of those
individuals to whom the MMAR are applied. The Government's
obligation to obey the law must include an obligation to
promote compliance with and respect for the law.
[118] The inevitable consequences of "the absence of a legal
source of marihuana for those who have been determined to be
in medical need of the drug" are inconsistent with the
fundamental principle that the state must obey and promote
compliance with the law. In our view, "the absence of a
legal source of supply renders the MMAR inconsistent with
the principles of fundamental justice." [emphasis added]

12. The Court's focus was on ensuring a lawful source of
cannabis for ATP-holders so that they would not have to turn
to the black market. To achieve that end, the Court granted,
as a remedy, a tailored declaration of invalidity:

"[165]... we conclude that the remedy which most directly
addresses "the constitutional deficiency presented by the
absence of a licit supply of marihuana" is to declare
invalid sections 34(2), 41(b) and 54 of the MMAR. This will
allow all DPL holders to be compensated, to grow for more
than one ATP holder, and to combine their growing with more
than two other DPL holders. Provided that the regulation of
July 8, 2003 remains in place and is acted upon, there is no
need to declare that the Government has a constitutional
obligation to provide the first seed to those DPL holders
who do not have one." [emphasis added]

13. The Court expressly held, however, that this was not the
only option and that the government was free to come up with
its own answer to the access question:

"[172] Third, we acknowledge that the Government could
choose to address the constitutional difficulty by adopting
an approach fundamentally different from that contemplated
in the MMAR. The alternatives range from "the Government
acting as the sole provider," to the decriminalization of
all transactions that provide marihuana to an ATP holder.
Indeed, even if the Government is content with the solution
contained in the MMAR as modified by our order, it may seek
to impose reasonable limits, "provided they do not impede an
effective licit supply," for example on the amount of
compensation that a DPL holder can claim or on the size of
the operation that a DPL holder can undertake. [emphasis
added]

14. In accordance with this acknowledgment, Health Canada -
after consulting widely with ATP-holders, physicians,
pharmacists, researchers, representatives of health care
organisations, health care professionals and law enforcement
officials - crafted a modified access system that included
the following:
(a) the repeal of s.34(2) of the MMAR which had prohibited
ATP-holders from compensating DPL-holders;
(b) the broadening of the language of s.34(1) of the MMAR to
expand the means by which DPL-holders can provide cannabis
to ATP-holders;
(c) the entrenching of a system of government supply of
cannabis in the Policy on Supply of Marihuana Seeds and
Dried Marihuana for Medical Purposes; and
(d) the restoration of ss.41(b) and 54 of the MMAR which
restrict DPL-holders from holding more than one DPL or
producing cannabis in common with more than two other DPL-
holders.

15. The evidence in Long established that this system is
working fine. ATP-holders are getting their cannabis.

16. It is important to recognize that in Hitzig the Court of
Appeal did not equate a lawful of licit supply with a
guaranteed supply. The constitutional standard is reasonable
lawful access:

"[166] The declarations of invalidity we propose remove the
single unconstitutional barrier to eligibility and
sufficient barriers to supply that ATP 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 marihuana
prohibition in s. 4 of the CDSA. While the record before us
sustains this conclusion, it is conceivable that, as events
unfold, further serious barriers could emerge either to
eligibility or to reasonable access to a licit source of
supply. Should that happen, the issue of the appropriate
remedy might have to be revisited in a future case."

17. The finding in Long that the government must not only
supply the cannabis it also "must take on the legal
obligation to supply it," is therefore simply mistaken.
Hitzig does not go so far. Hitzig simply requires reasonable
access to cannabis so that ATP-holders do not have to turn
to the black market. The government is free to structure the
system of access however it wishes, so long as it does not
"impede an effective licit supply." The system in place does
so. It is constitutionally sound.

JCT: Lawyers demanding reasonableness. Of course, what's
reasonable to math rejects like lawyers is another issue.
Justice Lederman said that having one doctor out of a
thousand provides reasonable access. Like I say, what
reasonable means to a bunch of math rejects isn't what
reasonable means to math graduates.

18. Gosselin v. Quebec, in which the Supreme Court of Canada
dealt with the issue of positive obligations and s.7 of the
Charter is instructive on this point:

"[81] Even if s.7 could be read to encompass economic
rights, a further hurdle emerges. Section 7 speaks of the
right not to be deprived of life, liberty, and security of
person, except in accordance with the principles of
fundamental justice. Nothing in the jurisprudence thus far
suggests that s.7 places a positive obligation on the state
to ensure that each person enjoys life, liberty or security
of the person. Rather, s.7 has been interpreted as
restricting the state's ability to deprive people of these.
Such a deprivation does not exist in the case at bar.
[82] I conclude that they do not."

19. The concern in Long that the government "can stop
[providing cannabis] tomorrow is illusory. Constitutionally
the government cannot stop providing cannabis tomorrow, or
at least not without providing some other constitutionally
satisfactory means of lawful access.

JCT: Sure they can stop providing tomorrow as long as the
prohibition against it dies at the same time.

If it did stop providing cannabis, then at that point, a
remedy might arise.

JCT: Not if the prohibition becomes invalid when they stop.

but the same would be true if it repealed the hypothetical
regulation suggested by the trial judge in Long obligating
the government to supply marihuana to eligible persons.

(b) Charter compliance does not require the enactment of
regulations

20. Long finds that in order to be Charter compliant, the
access regime requires not just formal government policy but
a binding law. The Supreme Court of Canada has said
otherwise. In Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada
(where the regime in issue was the procedure for determining
whether imported materials were obscene) the court held as
follows:

"[138].. In the administration of the department the
Minister may supplement by directive the provisions of the
Customs Act for its implementation. The public service
responds to ministerial direction with no less alacrity than
it responds to statute or regulation. "In short, an
importer's rights may be protected in fact by statute,
regulation, ministerial direction or even departmental
practice. What is crucial, at the end of the day, is that
Charter rights are in fact respected. The modalities for
achieving that objective will vary with the context. There
is nothing unconstitutional about the option selected by
Parliament in this case."
"[139] All of this is to say that there are various methods
to ensure respect by the public service of the Charter
rights of importers. Each method has its advantages and
disadvantages. "The fact that Parliament opted for the more
flexible routes of delegated regulation and ministerial
directive is not, I think, a reason to invalidate the
legislation itself." [emphasis added]

21. What is crucial at the end of the day in this context is
that the Charter rights of ATP-holders are respected.25
{25} The Charter rights of recreational cannabis users such
as the Applicant do not enter into it. The Supreme Court of
Canada has held that the ss.4(1) prohibition of recreational
possession of cannabis is constitutionally sound. R. v.
Malmo-Levine, R. v. Caine, Tab 7.

JCT: The Supreme Court did not hold that prohibition of
possession is constitutionally sound (after it had been
invalidated by Parker), the court held that prohibition of
possession could be sound. But it was never re-enacted after
Parker struck it down.

The Government's chosen "modality" - the current access
system, including the supply policy - does so, by providing
the required reasonable access to cannabis for therapeutic
purposes.

JCT: Reasonable to a lawyer, not to a mathematician.

The fact that the government has opted to do so by way of
policy rather than regulation is, in the language of Little
Sisters, "not.. a reason to invalidate" s.4(1) of the CDSA.

22. Long equates the circumstances here with those in
R.v.Smith,but the comparison is misconceived. Smith already
forms part of the analysis in Parker. In Smith, the SCC held
that a facially unconstitutional mandatory minimum sentence
could not be rendered constitutional by the fact that
prosecutors routinely exercised a case-by-case prosecutorial
discretion that ameliorated it.27
{27} R.v.Smith (1987) 34 CCC (3d) 97 S.C.C. Tab 10

The Court of Appeal in Parker expressly relied on Smith in
support of its finding that the pre-MMAR system was
constitutionally inadequate:28
{28} R.v.Parker. As noted earlier, the pre-MMAR system was
an interim policy under which the Minister of Health could
receive requests to exercise his discretion under s.56 of
the CDSA to provide an exemption from the cannabis
prohibition.

"[187] In my view, [Smith] is a complete answer to the
Crown's submission. The court cannot delegate to anyone,
including the Minister, the avoidance of a violation of
Parker's rights. Section 56 of the CDSA fails to answer
Parker's case "because it puts an unfettered discretion in
the hands of the Minister" to determine what is in the best
interests of Parker and other persons like him and leaves it
to the Minister to avoid a violation of the patient's
security of the person." [emphasis added]

23. In other words, the Court of Appeal's Smith concern with
the system as it then existed wasn't that the Minister had a
discretion to make decisions, it was that it was an
unfettered discretion exercised in the absence of an
adequate legislated standard for medical necessity. The MMAR
fixed that, by providing a comprehensive legislated standard
for medical necessity and a detailed and principled
structure for the Minister's decisions.

24. As we now know, the MMAR left open the access problem
that the Court of Appeal later identified in Hitzig, but the
current system has fixed that too, by providing reasonable
access to cannabis to those ATP-holders who are unable to
either grow their own or to secure a designated grower.

JCT: Remember, that 99 out of 100 people who need it can't
get is still considered "reasonable access" in lawyer
thinking. Judge thinking for sure.

25. The fact the Minister assesses specific requests by
individual ATP-holders for cannabis is not an issue of the
system's structure, it's an issue of its implementation. The
structure of the present system, like the structure of the
customs system in Little Sisters, above, is constitutionally
sound. If an ATP-holder's request to be supplied with
cannabis is denied, he or she may then seek a civil remedy
in respect of that decision.

JCT: Unless they die during the years they wait for the
remedy to be processed through the courts.

The fact that it is possible to make an unconstitutional
decision within the system does not undermine the
constitutionality of the system.

JCT: The fact they can screw up doesn't mean the system is
screwed up? If it could be done perfectly, the fact they
screw up does mean the system is screwed up.

26. The fact that the MMAR include mandatory language in
some provisions does not - contrary to the assumption in
Long - create a constitutional requirement that all
ministerial decisions regarding access be mandatory. There
is nothing inherently unconstitutional about discretionary
decisions.34
{34} See Baker v. Minister of Citizenship [1999] 2 S.C.R.
817 at para.53 Tab 11. See to similar effect Arsenault-
Cameron v. Prince Edward Island [2000] 1 S.C.R. 3; Slaight
Communications v. Davidson [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; Eaton v.
Brant County Board of Education, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 241;
Eldrige v. British Columbia (Attorney General) [1997] 3
S.C.R. 624; United States v. Burns [2001] 1 S.C.R. 283; and
Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835.

PART III - ADDITIONAL ISSUES

27. The Respondent raises no additional issues other than
the additional issue raised in the Respondent's factum dated
March 13 2007.

PART IV - ORDER REQUESTED

28. The Respondent requests the following relief:
(a) An order dismissing the Applicant's application;
(b) An order granting costs to the Respondent; and
(c) Such other relief as this Honorable Court determines to
be just.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Dated at Toronto this 24th day of October 2007.

Christopher Leafloor
Of Counsel for the Respondent
Her Majesty The Queen

JCT: So that's the Crown's arguments against the Long
technicality. I have until the 13th to file anything I want
to say but I don't want to get involved in the technicality.
I say
1) Parker's Sheppard decision granting him an exemption to
cultivate implicitly grants him an exemption to possess;
2) Parker's Pitt decision extending the Court of Appeal's
exemption against criminal prosecution can't be set aside in
civil court so it's still valid;
3) the possession offence struck down in Parker's first
victory is still struck down because courts can't resurrect
penal sanctions that have been struck down, only Parliament;
4) the cultivation offence struck down in Krieger is still
struck down because a stay pending appeal can't still be in
force out of an appeal file that is closed.
5) As for Long, I'm not going to add any more. If Judge
Clement wants to avoid all these meritorious hot potato
arguments backing up Parker's right to possess his anti-
seizure medicine, he still has the option of going with the
Long technical gimme.

So we'll see what happens on Nov 28 in Brampton.



--
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 that I have filed an application for
judicial review of the CRTC's refusal to get me a fair share
of time from Rogers Cable TV. I also filed a pre-election
motion for interim relief to make the CRTC get me equivalent
time or prevent the re-broadcast of the inequitable debate.
Federal Court Chief Justice Richard put off the decision on
stopping the unfair debate until after the election when it
would do no good.

I got the response to the motion to prevent further
injustice now that it's too late to do anything about it:

Court File No: 451-07

                   FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

Ottawa, Ontario, November 5 2007

Present: Decary J.A.

BETWEEN:

                        John C. Turmel
                                                    Appellant

                             and
                Canadian Radio-Television and
                Telecommunications Commission
                                                   Respondent


                            ORDER

COURT: The applicant's motion seeking an order of mandamus
or declaratory relief against the Canadian Radio-Television
and Telecommunications Commission is dismissed.

First, neither an order of mandamus nor declaratory relief
can be awarded on an interlocutory basis and by way of
motion (see Brissett v. Canada) (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration) 2002, 228 F.T.R. 314, 2002 FCT 971 at para. 11;
Jaballah v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
2002, 222 F.T.R. 197, 2002 FCT 584 at para. 7.

JCT: So there are some wrongs the courts of justice cannot
handle and cannot be persuaded to handle. Actually, that's
not true. Though a novel opinion is not necessarily right, a
right opinion on a novel problem necessarily starts with a
minority of one.

Before the election, could the Federal Court have declared
that the existing distribution is not yet equitable and
mandated that the CRTC make it so? Sure it could have if the
issue was obvious. This one's pretty obvious. I was denied
equal time because I wore my party button. Is that good
enough reason for not complying with Section 8 of the
broadcast regulations? Does it say broadcasters must offer
equitable time "unless a candidate wears a party button?" Or
did Rogers add "or wear a party button" to their definition?
And who says we have to obey Rogers?

So, yes, any judge who heard the original motion had the
power to declare that it didn't look equitable so far and
push the CRTC to do its duty to ensure a democratic
election, an equitable election, in the debate forum
provided by the stations with our air-waves.

Not letting the plea for novel relief be heard before the
election allowed the court to troop out some generality
about declaratory relief in general for interim motions.

COURT: Second, the motion is moot given that the provincial
election of October 10th, 2007, in Ontario, has already
occurred.

JCT: So, they say it's too late to do anything about it
after waiting until it was too late to do anything about it.

COURT: No costs were sought.
Robert Decary, J.A.

JCT: So, now it's on to the issue of whether or not I was
treated equitably by being denied my equal share for wearing
my party button. Fuhrer Philp hasn't gotten away with it. He
can still be censured. The only real effect is Philp's
cheating me was not averted. But it can still be condemned
though with no way to redress the offence.

So court's can't provide justice when they aren't set up to
provide justice! Can't offer interim relief, they have to
wait until you're officially cheated with no way to redress
the injustice. Can't seek to prevent injustice in the
interim, must wait until it's completely done before seeking
redress that can no longer be had.

Justice in Wonderland, law is such a shameful profession.


--
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 already hold the Records for "most elections
contested" and "most elections lost" but now I'm claiming a
share in a new record with my last winning political
opponent, Dave Levac:

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


Wednesdays Nov 7, 2007


Correspondence Editor,
Guinness Book of World Records,
338 Euston Road, London, NW1 3BD, UK
Tel/Fax: 44(0) 171 891 4567/4501
Email: webmaster@...


re: Two Novel Guinness World's Records claimed:


I would like alert you to two new Guinness World Records:

a) Dave Levac:
Most times having political opponents removed from election
debates by police in a democracy: 4."

In the purported democracy of Canada, Brantford police were
used four times during the 2007 Ontario General Election in
the riding of Brant to prevent an opponent of acquiescent
winner Liberal Dave Levac from participating in the debate
on:
- 1) Sep 18 2007 by Rogers Cablevision;
- 2) Sep 25 2007 by Pauline Johnson High School;
- 3) Sep 26 2007 by Brantford Board of Trade;
- 4) Sep 27 2007 by Brantford University Women.

b) John Turmel:
Most times being prevented from participating in election
debates by police in a democracy: 4

In the purported democracy of Canada, police were used four
times during the 2007 Ontario General Election in the riding
of Brant to prevent independent candidate John "The
Engineer" Turmel from participating in the debate on:
1) Sep 18 2007 by Rogers Cablevision for wearing a party
button;
2) Sep 25 2007 by Pauline Johnson High School for promoting
the decriminalisation of marijuana;
3) Sep 26 2007 by Brantford Board of Trade for registering
in the election after they had sent out their invitations;
4) Sep 27 2007 by Brantford University Women for being an
independent candidate "without a party."

Pictures and reports of actions by political police are
available at the Brantford Expositor.
http://www.theexpositor.com with details at my blog at
http://yahoogroups.com/group/turmel

Yours truly


John C. Turmel

JCT: It doesn't really matter if they put it on their
database or not, everyone knows it's not complete. You can't
find me there now. Of course, being in the Internet Book of
Records isn't so easy to hide.



--
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: Expositor Editor David Judd refused to publish the web
site with the transcript of the event in my letter to the
editor and then said he stood by Michael-Allan Marion's
report on me though he had not stood by it when originally
complained about to the Ontario Press Council. Refusing to
publish the link to the transcript was an unfair deletion
so:

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

Wednesday Nov 7 2007

Ontario Press Council
2 Carlton Street, #1706
Toronto, ON M5B 1J3
Tel/fax: 416-340-1981/8724
Email: info@...

re: "Turmel's Turmoil" Expositor editorial

1. On Sep 29 2007, the Brantford Expositor published an
editorial titled "Turmel's Turmoil" which contained a
fabrication about me:

>Turmel's turmoil
>Brantford Expositor, Sep 29 2007
>Editorial

John Turmel might better be named John Turmoil. Trouble
often attends the independent candidate on the election
trail. He was kicked out in the first 10 minutes of an all-
candidates debate on cable television last week. Since then,
he has not been invited to at least four other debates....

[... And why would they invite him after the way he behaved
at an all-candidates' meeting for the federal election in
Brant in January 2006? Here's how an Expositor editorial
described Turmel's disrespect for the other candidates and
the audience:
Turmel had no business goading Christian Heritage
Party candidate John Wubs and shouting at the
moderator, other candidates and the audience to
the point that police were called.
Turmel repeatedly quoted passages from the
"Internet Bible" clearly intended to offend Wubs.
The Christian Heritage candidate finally spoke up,
saying he was offended. NDP candidate Lynn
Bowering and Liberal candidate Lloyd St. Amand
said they were offended, too.
Turmel shouted that he is educated and that others
at the debate were not. He called one member of
the audience an "ignoramus" and told another
person "you're not very bright."
As for the audience in general, Turmel said, "You
cannot possibly follow what I've said. You're not
intelligent enough."
Conservative candidate Phil McColeman called the
police. Two officers quickly arrived by which time
Turmel had calmed down.
But the damage had been done. About one-third of
the audience of 75 people had left. Children and
young people, who had come to see democracy in
action, were treated to an embarrassing incident.
An all-candidates meeting should be an exchange of
ideas. Instead, audience members were asking: "Why
should we have to listen to this stuff?"

2. On Oct 1 2007, I sent a letter of complaint to the
Expositor editor:

>Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 21:35:53 -0400 (EDT)
>From: turmel@... (John Turmel)
>Subject: Turmel Turmoil editorial same old fabrication
>To: opinion@...

Letter to the Brantford Expositor
opinion@...

Re: Editorial: Turmel Turmoil

Dear Sir:

In your Sep 29 2007, you could not condone the Pauline
Johnson principal for barring her adult student voters from
the ideas of one of the candidate but you argued that
Michael-Allan Marion's report on my behavior at a 2006
federal election candidates debate made her not being
democratic all okay. Even if Marion's report had been true,
barring me for caustic remarks is still not very persuasive
reason to dispense with democratically letting voters hear
all their available choices.

Just as I have had to complain about Marion fabricating the
story about Tim Philp ordering Brantford Police to eject me
from this 2007 Rogers debate for making continued caustic
comments, which I had not, I had to complain about him
fabricating these caustic comments I had not made at a
debate which I had taped back in the 2006 election.

http://yahoogroups.com/group/brantford/message/1644 is the
transcript of the tape I made contradicting the fabrication.

http://yahoogroups.com/group/brantford/message/1729 is my
complaint to the Ontario Press Council.

http://yahoogroups.com/group/brantford/message/1860 is the
Council's decision after you submitted no defence to the
tape. The council refused to adjudicate the matter. So you
somehow are under the impression that because the council
would not censure you for the fabrication, that made it all
true.

Even if people still believe that 2006 fabrication as you
obviously do, I still don't think it was good enough of a
reason for doing away with the democratic process in
Brantford politics. And of course, barring me from the
process because of my ideas is an even worse reason than my
mis-reported bad behavior.
John Turmel, Brantford

3. The Expositor printed my letter to the editor titled "He
should not have been banned" which rebutted the editorial
but the web site URL containing the transcript of the tape
proving my points was dropped because:
























































>Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 11:39:59 -0400
>From: opinion@... (OPINION)
>Subject: Re: Turmel: Good urls
>To: turmel@...

Mr. Turmel: These URLs link to a page urging readers to sign
up for Yahoo groups. I have removed them from your letter.
David Judd

4. An Editor's note at the end of my letter said:
"The Expositor stands by the accuracy of Michael-Allan
Marion's reporting about John Turmel."

5. I would point out that when I complained to the Ontario
Press Council about his 2006 fabrication and provided a tape
of the event, the Expositor refused to stand by the accuracy
of Marion's story before the Ontario Press Council. Faced
with a clear-cut case of abuse, the Press Council abnegated
its responsibility and refused adjudicate the matter.

6. The Expositor seems under the impression that the Council
letting them get away with their 2006 fabrication must mean
it's true. And they repeated it.

7. Printing my letter but cutting out the web site
containing the transcript of the tape proving my point is
like printing my "not guilty" but not my evidence.

8. I am again complaining about The Expositor publishing the
same lame fabrication as I complained about in 2006 and then
deleting the site of the transcript of the tape from my
letter. The same tape from the 2006 debate that proved the
fabrication then can prove the fabrication now now.

9. Having failed to fulfill its mandate that last time, I
hope the Council avails itself of this second opportunity to
censure the fabrication. Let's hope that The Expositor
saying they stand by their reporter's version does not once
again means they will "not."

Yours truly,
John C. Turmel

JCT: Let's see if the Council lets them get away with a
tape-proven fabrication again.


--
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

[continued..

>#8479From: ernie yacub <ernieyacub@...>
>Date: Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:04 am
>Subject: Re: Volunteers to moderate? ernie_yacub

Rich Vazquez wrote:

> Are there any volunteers to moderate a new list?

EY: i would be prepared to help, but first we should
determine whether econ-lets, under a new name (and whether
that is an option), would be suitable. ey

JCT: Ernie'll do it. He knows what he likes and doesn't like.
---

>#8481From: Richard Kay <rich@...>
>Date: Tue Oct 30, 2007 1:49 pm
>Subject: Re: Volunteers to moderate? rich@...

> i would be prepared to help, but first we should determine
> whether econ-lets, under a new name (and whether that is
> an option), would be suitable. ey

RK: Could you perhaps suggest some alternative names and
perhaps give a short rationale for why a name change might
help?

JCT: Because econ-lets is that loser censored list.

RK: I'm trying to work out whether this should all be in one
list or whether having seperate lists for seperate topics
might be more useful. Best regards, Richard.

JCT: I'm surprised that splitting everyone up into even
smaller groups to stimulate even more discussion hasn't come
up before.
---

>#8482From: "Marc Gauvin" <gauvin@...>
>Date: Tue Oct 30, 2007 2:21 pm
>Subject: A new list marc_gauvin

MG: For those who might be interested there is a list called
Standard Exchanges its purpose is to initiate the
establishment of a first open standard for money definition
and design entitled International Working Group for Currency
Standardisation (IWGCS).  To subscribe send a message to
standard_exchanges-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Upon subscribing so you will receive a welcoming text and in
an other message a document "IWGCS Definition and  Rules"
that set out the mandate and ground rules.
I look forward to your participation. Best, Marc

JCT: Doesn't sound too controversial but if Bill Ryan's
going to tag along, I might come watch. Still, it's sad to
think that all your work in ijccr soon won't be there any
more. Sad that so few people can kill it off with no concern
for the users who were subscribed all these years.
---

>#8483From: "ernie yacub" <ernieyacub@...>
>Date: Tue Oct 30, 2007 2:33 pm
>Subject: Re: Volunteers to moderate? ernie_yacub

> Could you perhaps suggest some alternative names and
> perhaps give a short rationale for why a name change might
> help ?

how about community currencies discussion (ccdiscuss)?
lets is a subset of cc, as are timebanks, hours, etc. ey
---

>#8484From: Richard Kay <rich@...>
>Date: Tue Oct 30, 2007 4:51 pm
>Subject: Re: Volunteers to moderate? rich@...
Hi Ernie,

> how about community currencies discussion (ccdiscuss)?
> lets is a subset of cc, as are timebanks, hours, etc.

OK. I'd be very willing to host such a list on copsewood.net
if you want to own it. I'm not so sure that this would make
econ-lets redundant, because I think printed hours and
timebanks groups will also want to keep their own lists.
Jiscmail could be a suitable host if one of the listowners
has a UK academic staff position, but I'm not sure I want to
co/own this one. Regards, Richard.

JCT: And the only thing you can be sure of is that you
won't be bothered with any of those loud back and forth
arguments initiated by the cc engineer.
---

>#8485From: Todd Boyle <tboyle@...>
>Date: Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:46 pm
>Subject: Green fields proposal toddboyle

TB: I think the discussion here on IJCCR has been
remarkable, for the diversity of viewpoints and the depth of
the knowledge people have.

JCT: And it's all on its way down the memory hole.

TB: There are scores of people, posting from time to time,
who have dedicated their business or their economic
livelihood to alternative currencies. I am baffled why the
list owner wants to shut it off.

JCT: Shutting off the world's premier community currency
research discussion group baffles me too. Sort of. That's
how back-room censors work. On the moderator to kill his
own group. I've seen it done before.

TB: We the community, are the preponderance of the value
here, the substance of the value and if there were justice
in the world we would tell the "list owner" to piss off, and
go away because we are going to keep talking here.

JCT: Except that he's the owner and he has the power to end
debate. They've come up with a pretty good pretext haven't
they? The world's foremost discussion group is discussing
things way above and beyond what they expected so they're
dumbing it down. But I agree that righteous anger is called
for here. There's no reason Prof. Williams can't just leave
things be, plus allowing another co-moderator to delete the
viagra and hot money posts now let in. There's no excuse for
letting him do this and he has no excuse for doing it. Other
than coercion, which I'd expect anyway.

TB: But in these times, those who have their scraps of
paper, and their associated beliefs that they "own" the
wires or the server, have got the right therefore to control
the information exchanged between people, entirely different
and much larger groups of people--- Those "owners" have got
the legal power to shutoff our connections, and the
infantile ego and power, so, they always use it. Here are
the classic behaviors: these are universal in all owners of
telecommuncation or media:
- extract a fee or tax, from the traffic, or
- mine the personal information and derive undue gains from
it, or,
- censor or block some/all of the communication.

OK here is my recommendation: each of you. Go to the google
website and examine the offerings there such as
http://www.orkut.com/   This allows more than just sharing
messages and files.

JCT: I know, but it lets Prof. Williams kill the group just
because he said he would and no one can talk him out of it.
What if we had a vote? Should the Journal editors shut down
discussions built up over these long years? Let's vote.

TB: Another alternative- separate from the first--- is that
we move to the blogosphere. Yeah that's right... get a blog
and figure out how to subscribe to the people you WANT to
read and not the others.

JCT: Letting them win. Of course, we can try to set up a new
network. They're only killing what's been built, not
stopping us from starting all over.

TB: I admit to my laziness and moral decadence, I shoulda
done it long ago. But I am in the habit of email lists. --
quite different from blogs--- here, WE the poster, decides
what will be sent to ALL the members. Be aware-- most of the
world has moved on, to blogs. It's true.

JCT: How efficiently people get their information doesn't
bother me.

TB: Another choice is just go to YahooGroups and start an
email list called IJCCR, the hell with colin whoever he is.

JCT: You can't. He's not killing it, just shutting it down.
They'll probably shut down the archives, the real purpose,
so make a copy of your own discussions before they hit the
memory hole.

TB: Another choice- we have lots of choices ranging from
YouTube to audio teleconferenceing, to text messaging. But,
another choice is a Riseup.net list. These people understand
the nature of the attack on our discussion. They know, our
discussion will be attacked in various way, by owners, by
police, by spammers... It is a pure, standup bunch of people
who are determined to keep the servers running, provide
email accounts and group email service, etc. Todd

JCT: Sure, as long as they kill what we built here so far,
there are lots of places for us to go. But let's vote on
shutting discussion down and see if the editors can be made
to reverse their undiscussed ruling.
---

>#8486From: Stephen DeMeulenaere <stephen_dem@...>
>Date: Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:52 am
>Subject: Re: Green fields proposal stephen_dem

SD: Dear Todd, I'm surprised by the tone of your reply and
the quality of your language. Please re-read Colin's message
to the group about the reasons for ending the IJCCR list and
providing the opportunity to continue this discussion under
another name. This is so that IJCCR can focus on its work as
an International Journal of CC Research.

JCT: You can count on Shephen to be in favor of ending the
ijccr list and continuing under another name. Killing our
discussions allows IJCCR to focus on things he wants to
focus on. How shutting down discussion helps research he
hasn't yet explained. Har har har. Bet he had a hand in
getting Williams to kill the list. His applause is surely
noted.

SD: The decision to make this change was collective, not
singular.  Myself and others were part of the decision.

JCT: Wouldn't you know it. The guy who's done more to slow
down the world-wide UNILETS project is in on shutting down
discussion of the world's premier discussion group. I always
called him a bankster mole and you can bet the banksters are
applauding him now.

SD: Being upset with the list owner means being upset with
a group, not an individual.

JCT: It wasn't the group who voted to shut down, it was the
owner. And being upset with the owner for shutting down the
group is not being upset with the guoup. What a sick puppy.

SD: Thank you for directing your energy towards the
continuation of this discussion forum under a new name.
Regards,  Stephen

JCT: As long as the discussions that went here get shut
down. We know another of the guilty. To be expected, of
course, that those who helped will come out in support.
---

>#8487From: hugh barnard <hughbarnardlists@...>
>Date: Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:02 am
>Subject: ccdiscuss is good for me, problem with very
specialised discussions hughbarnardl...

HB: Hi folks Just to say, I'll 'second' Ernie's suggest, the
content is more important than the name, that siad, it
seems a pretty good name. I'm a little wary of splitting up
the discussions into specialised parts:
- discussion threads deal with that to some extent
- it usually lead to vey low volumes because the
subject is fairly specialised anyway
- if (happily!) the new list is a victim of its own
success, we can always split it later..
Just my 2ccc (community currency cents), regards Hugh
---

>#8488From: "Marc Gauvin" <gauvin@...>
>Date: Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:40 am
>Subject: Re: Green fields proposal marc_gauvin

MG: Dear Stephen, Colin
Why did you not define the list and the rules appropriately?
Why have you not yet made the apporopriate technical steps
to orient the group to constructive ends?  Why do you
believe that by limiting input you are going to serve CCs
better?

JCT: Maybe serving CCs better isn't their aim.

MG: The list I have opened standard-exchanges, clearly
defines an activity that is constructive and eliminates the
possibility of ambiguous opened ended debate i.e. ONLY those
that wish to clarify the notion of currency and establish a
consensus with respect to the specification of currency will
join that group. Why did you not do something similar?
Why do you not create a more constuctive list but just limit
input? What is your declared goal written, signed and
delivered to the world?  Or can you not share it with us for
some strategic reason? Sincerely, Marc
---

>#8489From: Richard Kay <rich@...>
>Date: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:43 am
>Subject: Re: Green fields proposal rich@...

Todd Boyle wrote:

> I am baffled why the list owner wants to shut it off.

RK: AFAIK he doesn't. He just wants to spend his time
differently. As a long-standing multiple and serial
listowner I can fully understand why.

JCT: Don't call it "shut off." Call it something else.

> We the community, are the preponderance of the value here,
> the substance of the value and if there were justice in
> the world we would tell the "list owner" to piss off, and
> go away because we are going to keep talking here.

RK: Nothing to stop us continuing, but if you want an email
list to help us do it then someone has to own it.

JCT: The Journal can own it, it just doesn't have to censor
it.

> But in these times, those who have their scraps of paper,
> and their associated beliefs that they "own" the wires or
> the server, have got the right therefore to control the
> information exchanged between people, entirely different
> and much larger groups of people--- Those "owners"
> have got the legal power to shutoff our connections,
> and the infantile ego and power, so, they always use it.

RK: Todd, you really do seem to me very much the Internet
virgin.

JCT: That was meant to enflame.

RK: The protocols are the commons which either no-one or
everyone owns. The servers, lists and bandwidth (all plural
nouns - there is nosuch thing as "the server") all cost
someone something so have owners (also plural noun). That
which costs has the ownership of whoever pays. What is
common knowledge can (and should) belong to all.

JCT: It costs nothing to own a yahoogroup.

RK: You don't like current server or list options ? Fine -
run your own server if you can afford 20$US/month to do it
and have the inclination to learn how.

JCT: So don't questions what was done, obey, and go
elsewhere is his suggestion. And now some mumbo-jumbo:

RK: (A willingness to kick the mind-numbing addiction to
monopoly software designed by Microsoft to minimise your
technical understanding, resulting in virginal beliefs about
what the Internet is and how it works, and where this
monopoly exists? How many people spend $20/month or more and
the time needed to learn Linux/Unix communicating with their
mobile phones ? )

JCT: Irrelevant mumbo jumbo.

RK: If you want to run your own list

JCT: By first accepting quietly what you don't like.

RK: (less skill needed here than running your own server)
there are plenty of server operators (including myself)
welcoming those wanting to put in the effort of list
ownership (who can demonstrate they understand the minimal
responsibility this involves) for lists they are willing to
support.

JCT: Because there are servers ready, no reason to question
why this one is being shut down.

RK: If you don't want to pay the cost in money or time or
the learning curve to play this game, then (unless you want
those who can to think you are being silly) please don't
stand on the sidelines shouting "infantile ego" to those who
are willing to put their money and/or time where your mouth
is.

JCT: Cheap shot against a valid objection.

> Here are the classic behaviors: these are universal in all
> owners of telecommuncation or media:
> - extract a fee or tax, from the traffic, or
> - mine the personal information and derive undue gains
>from it, or,
> - censor or block some/all of the communication.

An argument supported by the idea that "the server" (singular
noun) is a monopoly ?

JCT: Just can't stay with the moral of the situation, always
going back to the hardware.

RK: Of course everyone has an agenda, Virgnia, but did you
imagine you didn't have one too ? And where ownership of
telecommunications and media are not monopolies, then
exactly why is the fact of people owning these having and
promoting agendas a problem ?

JCT: He avoids the issue of the righteousness of shutting it
down by pointing out how we can move.

> Be aware-- most of the world has moved on, to blogs.

RK: Blogs, like email lists, have owners with policies and
agendas about the content they are willing to carry. Both
sources of discussion can require maintenance to keep out
spam.

JCT: And IJCCR needs a way to keep out Turmel spam as
effectively as Kay's econ-lets kept it out.

RK: Some users prefer RSS to aggregate blog updates and some
prefer email lists as their preferred push technology, and
both methods are likely to be relevant for a long time to
come. Email is more convenient for me to keep up with many
lists, some of which are not used for long periods but which
then unexpectedly spring back to life after a longer outage
than my likely RSS newsfeed reconfiguration interval. If you
reckon you can move long-term discussion previously carried
out on IJCCR to a blogsite within your or some other
ownership you are very welcome to try.

JCT: You can try to save previous discussion but otherwise,
all those years of work and discussions will be gone.

> Another choice is just go to YahooGroups and start an
>email list called IJCCR, the hell with colin whoever he is.

RK: The IJCCR name and the identically named list on Yahoo
are Colin's brand and channel and he can do whatever he
likes to promote these.

JCT: That's right. The owner has the right to shut it down
no matter who objects. That's the nature of ownership.

RK: I see this in principle and legal reality as matters of
fact and not opinion.

JCT: He owns it and that's it. You'd think Richard was in on
the discussion (we didn't get to be in on) to shut it down.

RK: I don't see that you have any more right to
misappropriate this brand than any other.

JCT: It would be misappropriation for anyone to keep it
alive.

RK: Try doing that to Disney, Linux, Microsoft or Mozilla
and you would get sued.

JCT: That's right. Colin owns ijccr and can shut it down.

RK: Do this to IJCCR and if Colin chooses not to sue you for
it, then your misappropriation and dilution of his brand
will, in my view, greatly diminish whatever reputation you
may have within the CC community.

JCT: The guys who tries to keep it alive will lose
reputation while the guy who killed it keeps his.

RK: If you try to use this brand name for a discussion
purpose not sponsored by the International Journal of
Community Currency Research then I for one will not be
joining in your discussion.

JCT: Big loss.

> Another choice- we have lots of choices ranging from
> YouTube to audio teleconferenceing, to text messaging.
> But, another choice is a Riseup.net list.   These people
> understand the nature of the attack on our discussion.
> They know, our discussion will be attacked in various
> way, by owners, by police, by spammers... It is a pure,
> standup bunch of people who are determined to keep the
> servers running, provide email accounts and group email
> service, etc.

RK: In the UK "standup" means comedian. Well being comic can
certainly help communications along, but their channels will
be more technically sustainable if their server admins take
their clown hats off while they are doing the system admin
(;-).

JCT: Sadly, it's not the Brit definition being used.

RK: This also doesn't get you away from riseup.net owning
their server and having an agenda to further. Try starting
something there that causes them to tread too hard and
illegally on big enough toes and you will then either test
and stimulate to be more explicitly defined the limits of
their tolerance, or you will otherwise get them shut down.

JCT: How dare you try to keep discussion alive.

RK: Run your own server and host illegal content that annoys
people enough to want to stop you and this will happen through
your actions in respect of the usage contracts which you have
with your upstream providers. Best wishes, Richard.

JCT: Illegal content mumbo jumbo.
---

>#8490From: Todd Boyle <tboyle@...>
>Date: Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:24 pm
>Subject: Apologies for my post toddboyle

TB: I apologize for my post yesterday.

JCT: You apologize for being upset hat the moderator decide
to unaliterally end a discussion group. How dare you? He's
El Duce, Der Fuhrer, good people just bow, scrape, and obey.

TB: It was apparently inaccurate in ascribing the change to
a single individual, and it was infantile to attack his
motives and character.

JCT: No, it was a small, private group who ordered the
execution so that makes their motives and character all
okay.

TB: So, things are not broken as badly as I thought,

JCT: Yes, they are.

TB: Sorry for the disruption TOdd

JCT: I appreciated the sentiment since I felt the very same
way, still do. Just because he founded the group doesn't
give him the right, even if he has the power, to terminate
discussions for no good reason and because:

"CW: the new Editorial Board of the journal has decided that
this 'discussion list' is not fulfilling its original aim."

JCT: A new board has decided to change the rules and we know
who a few on that board, don't we. So the intent is to quell
debate and it's doubtful we can convince them to just leave
it alone alive when they're set on shutting it down. After
all, "this 'discussion list' is not fulfilling its original
aim," whatever that has now been determined to be.

So everyone whose posts are going down the memory hole has
little time to save their work. Me, I always cross-posted my
stuff to my own LETS Social Credit group [letssc] at
http://yahoogroups.com/group/letssc

If they'd kicked Turmel off the group, then it would have
died like Richard Kay's other group while wherever the
banking systems engineer moved to would continue
controversial discussions.

For sure, you know that you can join econ-lets or whatever
group Stephen, Richard and Ernie run to but you know the
censorship will make it as boring as Kay's econ-lets. I
invite those of you who want to engage in heated free
discussions to come on over to letssc where there is no
censorship though I manage to keep out the spam.

I especially invite my favorite shit-disturber, Bill Ryan,
over and others who do like to participate in or just read
the debates he and I generate. Unless the editorial board
that has banned discussion from this research group change
their minds. Ha! What possible reason could there be for
shutting down the world's premier group?



--
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've seen this happen before where pressure from behind
forced a moderator to shut down a successful debate group:

>#8471From: "cwilli5210" <CWilli5210@...>
>Date: Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:21 pm
>Subject: Future of IJCCR discussion group cwilli5210

CW: Dear IJCCR discussion group members,
As Editor of the IJCCR journal for some ten years, and also
hands-off moderator of this Group for the same time, I would
like to announce that the new Editorial Board of the journal
has decided that this 'discussion list' is not fulfilling
its original aim, which was to be a forum for discussion of
the issues arising in the journal articles.

JCT: Yes, it went way past expectations and turned into the
world's premier arena of debate on currency systems
engineering.

CW: It has decided that now is the time for a change.

JCT: When you're the best, change can only make it better?

CW: As such, I am giving notice that in one month's time,
this discussion list will radically change.

JCT: So how many people made the decision to end free
discussion? And who were in on the decision?

CW: No longer will it be possible for you to post messages
on it.

JCT: From live discussion to completely censored. Someone
decided there should be no more of the free discussion which
had made ijccr the world's premier discussion group on
community credits. How many and who made that blunder?

CW: Instead, it will become in the first instance solely a
message board for the moderator to post information on an
occasional basis to list members about developments in the
field of community currencies and more particularly to
inform you about new articles, etc in the IJCCR journal.

JCT: Wow. Talk about killing off the world's foremost
discussion group on currency system engineering. I wonder
who decided to kill live discussion and what are the
credentials in banking systems engineering of those to judge
what does get through?

CW: As such, if you choose to remain a list member, you will
in future receive many fewer posts.

JCT: A totally censored group won't take up much of your
time.

CW: For those of you who wish to establish another
'discussion group' for community currencies, you have one
month to use this discussion list to explore how this might
be achieved, to establish such a list and inform current
IJCCR list members.

JCT: The editors of the Journal have issued their writ of
execution for free speech in community currency research.
Imagine a group with a name like research saying free
discussion is not what their group is about!

CW: We hope, however, that most of you interested in
community currencies will remain members

JCT: Despite killing the fun stuff, they hope you remain for
the censored and boring stuff.

CW: and will welcome receiving much more selective posts
more focused on the journal and directly related issues.

JCT: Selected by whom? What qualifications do they have in
currency systems engineering to be passing judgment on what
I, the only real banking systems engineer, what to discuss
in my field?

CW: Best wishes Colin C Williams, Co-Editor, IJCCR

JCT: I think that Professor Colin C. Williams, Ph.D.,
pushing IJCCR discussion with the only debate between the
Keepers and the Abolitionists of usury down the memory hole
is a big mistake. It's not often you see a moderator kill
off a winner.
---

>#8472From: "Swieto Radosci" radosc@ Krzysztof Lewandowski
>Date: Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:42 pm
>Subject: Re: Future of IJCCR discussion group

KL: Dear all. as long-time subscriber to IJCCR list I would
say - what a pity that this comparatively open-minded
vehicle stops working.

JCT: What a pity it was made to stop working so arbitrarily,
with no discussion by the members who would like to see it
keep working just as it is. Of course, had there been a vote
on changing things, I bet ending live discussion would have
continued.

KL: Tired, or what the reason for The Board to drastically
cut those ties (synapses) among people across continents,
which were built for many years?

JCT: Oops. They mustn't have realized they were cutting
those ties (synapses) among people across continents, which
were built for many years. Completely accidental surgery, or
better knifing, no doubt.

KL: Even while non-writing we communicate somehow through
reading posts sent to this list, don't we?

JCT: Debate, even heated debate scores points and we've had
some beauties between my Abolitionists and all guises of
Bill Ryan or Stephen DeMeulenaere or other anti-
abolitionists. This has for years been the only arena of
debate between the Keepers and the Abolitionists of usury. I
was speaking of the historic battle between the Keepers and
the Abolitionists of usury in my Supreme Court pleadings in
the early 1980s, in my Bible poem, I speak of the Armageddon
War between the Keepers and the Abolitionists of usury the
cause of poverty and war. So to have representatives of the
Keepers provide opposition for us to contend with is better
than a sparring partner, it's for real. These guys are in
favor of letting the poor starve a little longer and you get
to argue we can fix money so the poor get to eat too. It's
fun arguing for saving people and it's rare to have people
available to argue against your saving the poor. This is
historic debate. Our debates with economists for years in
front of the Bank of Canada are gone except for what I
recorded in early journals. These debates are permanent, if
soon not readily available.

KL: Was it considered by The Board that also off-list
communication that was extensively practiced among IJCCR
members thanks to its present low moderation ?

JCT: Do you think they don't know they're breaking all these
off-list communications that were extensively practiced
among IJCCR members thanks to its present low moderation?
Oops, they didn't realize so many people were connected up
through the debates. All communications must be cut, oops?

KL: Krzysztof Lewandowski cc researcher, poland

JCT: Save your archives now because the importance of these
debates between the Abolitionists of usury and those who'd
keep the salvation small and slow or the "not at all"
Keepers is not yet fully appreciated.
Marc Gauvin can attest that having a gnurd to argue with us
in front of the Bank of Canada for continued usury (mort of
the poor) was a rarity that a smart Abolitionist should
cherish having. What a show the Keepers have given us over
the years in these debates. Backing down from bet after bet
but always coming back for more. It's historic and I've
recorded it all because I know the real purpose of the back-
room boys is to send the archives of discussions down the
Orwellian memory hole. When no one's really noticing,
they'll "oops" the archives and gone forever from the public
internet menu will be those fun debates.
---

#8473From: "ernie yacub" <ernieyacub@...>
Date: Mon Oct 29, 2007 5:01 pm
Subject: Re: Future of IJCCR discussion group ernie_yacub

EY: long overdue, imo.

JCT: You can count on Ernie happy about shutting down live
debate.

EY: i propose a new egroup, managed collectively through an
online voting process, which would eliminate the need for a
central committee, with the added benefit of actually using
cc in the process.

JCT: Must be some pretty drastic stuff they want to do if
they need a committee to run their new discussion group.
Such group effort is usually necessary because of the
censorship board needed to decide what gets excluded.

EY: an egroup devoted to an exchange of information, ideas,
and best practices in the field of community currencies and
open money systems.

JCT: Sort of what the International Journal of Community
Currency Research group has been doing. But with a
democratical process for excluding some writers, no doubt.

EY: i will keep my sub to this egroup as a channel to ijccr
and "more selective posts more focused on the journal and
directly related issues." thots? ey

JCT: He hasn't posted much in these archives to be proud
about so Ernie's ready to move on.
---

>#8474From: hugh barnard <hughbarnardlists@...>
>Date: Tue Oct 30, 2007 6:14 am
>Subject: Future of IJCCR discussion: my suggestion

HB: Hi folks. My feeling is that we should set up an
equivalent but moderated (we can work out a 'panel' perhaps
by voting? perish the thought) list.

JCT: A voting system on every article to save against spam.

HB: I'm saying moderated, because then we can avoid the
outbreaks of 'oh yes you did, oh no you didn't' type
arguments (and other random idiocies, commercial software
spammers etc.) that blemish the current list and lower
signal to noise ratio.

JCT: I don't mind the moderator, I even urged the moderator,
to delete the commercial spammers that blemish our list but
would never lump in the outbreaks of debate with spam. Shame
on you for trying to censor 'oh yes you did, oh no you
didn't' argument. Maybe you can't win a debate by putting
your money where your mouth is but I can. There's no such
thing as a 'oh yes you did, oh no you didn't' argument. It's
a right one and a wrong one that won't admit it. That you
can't distinguish the difference is evidenced by your
willingness to censor the right side of the debate with the
wrong side of the debate. How even handed of you?

HB: If we can get that together, could we point to it on
the 'official' ijccr list? Best regards Hugh

JCT: Why don't you go to Richard Kay's old econ-lets list.
It used to be the foremost social currency system on the
internet until he banned the world's only controversial
banking systems engineer who moved over to ijccr and let
econ-lets rot in its own non-controversialism. That TURMEL
posts generate the majority of heated discussions at ijccr
should indicate what happened to econ-lets when the major
generator was censored. See the whole story of Richard Kay
banning John Turmel from econ-lets at:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/letskay1.htm
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/letskay2.htm
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/letskay3.htm
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/letskay4.htm


>#8475From: CWilli5210@...
>Date: Tue Oct 30, 2007 2:22 am
>Subject: Future of IJCCR discussion group: my suggestion

If you collectively decide to establish a discussion list,
there is absolutely no problem with IJCCR creating a link to
it. However, the IJCCR mailing list will be retaining the
'IJCCR' nomenclature so you'll have to think of another
name: 'Exchange' for instance... Colin

JCT: Of course, if the purpose if shutting down any
discussion in community currency research, you can't very
well let it go on under another stewardship. If discussion
must be shut down, it can't be allowed to go on.
---

>#8476From: Richard Kay <rich@...>
>Date: Tue Oct 30, 2007 9:12 am
>Subject: Re: Future of IJCCR discussion group rich@...

RK: Might I point out that econ-lets@... continues for its
original purpose, i.e. automatic posting of on-topic
discussion of community currency issues (spam/spammers
excluded) ?

JCT: So if you want you discussion not livened up by
controversial TURMEL posts, econ-lets has always been the
place to go.

RK: I think it could also be helpful for those intending
wider discussion on exchange topics in general to find one
or more other homes for these to the extent this has been
supported in the past on IJCCR.

JCT: Take the taboo topics elsewhere, not econ-lets.

RK: In addition where prospective list ownership and
purpose, posting and spam-prevention policies are
sufficiently defined and consistent with my personal support
agendas I am very happy to offer prospective CC and related
topic list owners hosting unretouched by advertising on my
server: copsewood.net

JCT: With his Turmel-prevention policies are sufficiently
defined...

RK: Personally I think the idea of voting on moderation in
connection with a proposed replacement for IJCCR unworkable
for various reasons, the ready availability of sock-puppet
pseudo identities among them. If this can be made to work by
others all well and good, but I'm not going to spend a lot
of my time involved in discussions about which posts should
be allowed through within a voted-upon moderation process.

JCT: It takes so much time for him to censor his econ-lets
all by himself that he doesn't have the time for panel
discussions on which posts to exclude.

RK: In my understanding lists need ownership or they
eventually become a spam source, as was the case in
connection with some of the messages which were posted by
some with zero interest in CC through the IJCCR list.

JCT: I managed to keep spam off all my lists. It's easy to
tell the difference between on-topic and off.

RK: I would also like to offer Colin my warm thanks and
appreciation for the effort, open-mindedness and tolerance
he has invested into IJCCR during the last several years
Richard Kay.

JCT: Arbitrarily closing down the group isn't what I'd call
open-mindedness but then again, unlike Richard, I'm not
happy about it.
---

>#8477From: ernie yacub <ernieyacub@...>
>Date: Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:39 am
>Subject: Re: Future of IJCCR discussion group ernie_yacub

Richard Kay wrote:
> Might I point out that econ-lets@... continues for its
> original purpose, i.e. automatic posting of on-topic
> discussion of community currency issues (spam/spammers excluded) ?

unfortunately, econ-lets is limited, at least in perception,
to the lets brand, and may be unsuitable as a replacement -
perhaps a change of name would take care of that issue.

JCT: It's perceived that LETS 1/s currency isn't the same
thing as other 1/s currencies. The perceivers are wrong,
they're all time-based 1/s currencies no matter what the
name of the software. That LETS was the software recognized
at the UNILETS resolution C6 to
Governments in the United Nations Millennium Declaration is
its only advantage, name-wise. It's the world's best known
time-based (not just stuff-based) currency.

> I think it could also be helpful for those intending wider
> discussion on exchange topics in general to find one or
> more other homes for these to the extent this has been
> supported in the past on IJCCR.

i would also like to see discussions of con money
eliminated, except where actually related to cc issues - as
in con for cc exchange.

JCT: Ernie's not interested in knowing how the bad money
malfunctions, just in knowing how the good money does. Sure,
but how much discussion can be generated about the proper
operation of poker chips. Not much. The real discussion
arises when we look at the effects, inflation and
unemployment, of the government-run chips born with the toll
of interest on it. Now there's fun stuff. But of course,
Ernie's not into the fascinating "how the money system
malfunctions" and is only into "how chips well-function."
The group should not be slowed down to the pace of its
slowest members and topics taken on should not be limited to
those that the more limited can stay with.

> Personally I think the idea of voting on moderation...

EY: i'm sorry, i wasn't very clear about the voting business
- it was not meant as a voted-upon moderation process
involving discussion - more like imdb, where each of us
acknowledges posts that are useful in some way, thereby
building reputation over time.

JCT: That sounds more complicated than everyone getting
together to decide what gets posted and what doesn't.

> In my understanding lists need ownership or they
> eventually become a spam source, as was the case in
> connection with some of the messages which were posted by
> some with zero interest in CC through the IJCCR list.

with a voting process, those posters would learn whether
their messages had an audience and would, over time, stop -
some of the more persistent spammers who were clearly off
topic could still be dealt with by the "owner". ey

JCT: And of course, he's not talking about real spam, he's
talking about posters discussing things he doesn't want them
to discuss. Sure, Ernie doesn't have to read what they're
discussing but he still wants them to stop because it
bothers him that they're discussing things he's not
interested in reading.
---

>#8478From: "Rich Vazquez" <rich.vazquez@...>
>Date: Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:48 am
>Subject: Volunteers to moderate? rich_vazquez

RV: Are there any volunteers to moderate a new list?

JCT: Ready to move on. First thing is to organize volunteers
for the censor board.

RV: I think for expediency sake (we have less than one
month) we create a group with low moderation to start, but
we need trusted individuals who have participate to at least
create the group, as they will "own" it.

JCT: Some to distinguish between the topic and spam needs to
be really trusted? Of course, it's not the censoring of the
spam that's the real aim, it's the censoring of the back-
and-forth arguments that some do not want to have others
reading.

RV: Once the group is set up, we can use the polls in that
group to determine the level of moderation, etc. Any takers?

JCT: Right, 500 members voting on what gets through. There
must be lots of people out there who want to have panel
discussions on what debates are allowed and what debates are
not. Will 500 members all spend a few minutes each
day voting on which articles get through and which do not?
I'm sure lots of people won't just love to add that chore to
their daily agenda to make sure that topics that Ernie
doesn't want to read about get through.
---

[continued

>#8479From: ernie yacub <ernieyacub@...>
>Date: Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:04 am
>Subject: Re: Volunteers to moderate? ernie_yacub

Rich Vazquez wrote:

> Are there any volunteers to moderate a new list?

EY: i would be prepared to help, but first we should
determine whether econ-lets, under a new name (and whether
that is an option), would be suitable. ey

JCT: Ernie'll do it. He knows what he likes and doesn't like.
---

>#8481From: Richard Kay <rich@...>
>Date: Tue Oct 30, 2007 1:49 pm
>Subject: Re: Volunteers to moderate? rich@...

> i would be prepared to help, but first we should determine
> whether econ-lets, under a new name (and whether that is
> an option), would be suitable. ey

RK: Could you perhaps suggest some alternative names and
perhaps give a short rationale for why a name change might
help?

JCT: Because econ-lets is that loser censored list.

RK: I'm trying to work out whether this should all be in one
list or whether having seperate lists for seperate topics
might be more useful. Best regards, Richard.

JCT: I'm surprised that splitting everyone up into even
smaller groups to stimulate even more discussion hasn't come
up before.
---

>#8482From: "Marc Gauvin" <gauvin@...>
>Date: Tue Oct 30, 2007 2:21 pm
>Subject: A new list marc_gauvin

MG: For those who might be interested there is a list called
Standard Exchanges its purpose is to initiate the
establishment of a first open standard for money definition
and design entitled International Working Group for Currency
Standardisation (IWGCS).  To subscribe send a message to
standard_exchanges-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Upon subscribing so you will receive a welcoming text and in
an other message a document "IWGCS Definition and  Rules"
that set out the mandate and ground rules.
I look forward to your participation. Best, Marc

JCT: Doesn't sound too controversial but if Bill Ryan's
going to tag along, I might come watch. Still, it's sad to
think that all your work in ijccr soon won't be there any
more. Sad that so few people can kill it off with no concern
for the users who were subscribed all these years.
---

>#8483From: "ernie yacub" <ernieyacub@...>
>Date: Tue Oct 30, 2007 2:33 pm
>Subject: Re: Volunteers to moderate? ernie_yacub

> Could you perhaps suggest some alternative names and
> perhaps give a short rationale for why a name change might
> help ?

how about community currencies discussion (ccdiscuss)?
lets is a subset of cc, as are timebanks, hours, etc. ey
---

>#8484From: Richard Kay <rich@...>
>Date: Tue Oct 30, 2007 4:51 pm
>Subject: Re: Volunteers to moderate? rich@...
Hi Ernie,

> how about community currencies discussion (ccdiscuss)?
> lets is a subset of cc, as are timebanks, hours, etc.

OK. I'd be very willing to host such a list on copsewood.net
if you want to own it. I'm not so sure that this would make
econ-lets redundant, because I think printed hours and
timebanks groups will also want to keep their own lists.
Jiscmail could be a suitable host if one of the listowners
has a UK academic staff position, but I'm not sure I want to
co/own this one. Regards, Richard.

JCT: And the only thing you can be sure of is that you
won't be bothered with any of those loud back and forth
arguments initiated by the cc engineer.
---

>#8485From: Todd Boyle <tboyle@...>
>Date: Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:46 pm
>Subject: Green fields proposal toddboyle

TB: I think the discussion here on IJCCR has been
remarkable, for the diversity of viewpoints and the depth of
the knowledge people have.

JCT: And it's all on its way down the memory hole.

TB: There are scores of people, posting from time to time,
who have dedicated their business or their economic
livelihood to alternative currencies. I am baffled why the
list owner wants to shut it off.

JCT: Shutting off the world's premier community currency
research discussion group baffles me too. Sort of. That's
how back-room censors work. On the moderator to kill his
own group. I've seen it done before.

TB: We the community, are the preponderance of the value
here, the substance of the value and if there were justice
in the world we would tell the "list owner" to piss off, and
go away because we are going to keep talking here.

JCT: Except that he's the owner and he has the power to end
debate. They've come up with a pretty good pretext haven't
they? The world's foremost discussion group is discussing
things way above and beyond what they expected so they're
dumbing it down. But I agree that righteous anger is called
for here. There's no reason Prof. Williams can't just leave
things be, plus allowing another co-moderator to delete the
viagra and hot money posts now let in. There's no excuse for
letting him do this and he has no excuse for doing it. Other
than coercion, which I'd expect anyway.

TB: But in these times, those who have their scraps of
paper, and their associated beliefs that they "own" the
wires or the server, have got the right therefore to control
the information exchanged between people, entirely different
and much larger groups of people--- Those "owners" have got
the legal power to shutoff our connections, and the
infantile ego and power, so, they always use it. Here are
the classic behaviors: these are universal in all owners of
telecommuncation or media:
- extract a fee or tax, from the traffic, or
- mine the personal information and derive undue gains from
it, or,
- censor or block some/all of the communication.

OK here is my recommendation: each of you. Go to the google
website and examine the offerings there such as
http://www.orkut.com/   This allows more than just sharing
messages and files.

JCT: I know, but it lets Prof. Williams kill the group just
because he said he would and no one can talk him out of it.
What if we had a vote? Should the Journal editors shut down
discussions built up over these long years? Let's vote.

TB: Another alternative- separate from the first--- is that
we move to the blogosphere. Yeah that's right... get a blog
and figure out how to subscribe to the people you WANT to
read and not the others.

JCT: Letting them win. Of course, we can try to set up a new
network. They're only killing what's been built, not
stopping us from starting all over.

TB: I admit to my laziness and moral decadence, I shoulda
done it long ago. But I am in the habit of email lists. --
quite different from blogs--- here, WE the poster, decides
what will be sent to ALL the members. Be aware-- most of the
world has moved on, to blogs. It's true.

JCT: How efficiently people get their information doesn't
bother me.

TB: Another choice is just go to YahooGroups and start an
email list called IJCCR, the hell with colin whoever he is.

JCT: You can't. He's not killing it, just shutting it down.
They'll probably shut down the archives, the real purpose,
so make a copy of your own discussions before they hit the
memory hole.

TB: Another choice- we have lots of choices ranging from
YouTube to audio teleconferenceing, to text messaging. But,
another choice is a Riseup.net list. These people understand
the nature of the attack on our discussion. They know, our
discussion will be attacked in various way, by owners, by
police, by spammers... It is a pure, standup bunch of people
who are determined to keep the servers running, provide
email accounts and group email service, etc. Todd

JCT: Sure, as long as they kill what we built here so far,
there are lots of places for us to go. But let's vote on
shutting discussion down and see if the editors can be made
to reverse their undiscussed ruling.
---

>#8486From: Stephen DeMeulenaere <stephen_dem@...>
>Date: Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:52 am
>Subject: Re: Green fields proposal stephen_dem

SD: Dear Todd, I'm surprised by the tone of your reply and
the quality of your language. Please re-read Colin's message
to the group about the reasons for ending the IJCCR list and
providing the opportunity to continue this discussion under
another name. This is so that IJCCR can focus on its work as
an International Journal of CC Research.

JCT: You can count on Shephen to be in favor of ending the
ijccr list and continuing under another name. Killing our
discussions allows IJCCR to focus on things he wants to
focus on. How shutting down discussion helps research he
hasn't yet explained. Har har har. Bet he had a hand in
getting Williams to kill the list. His applause is surely
noted.

SD: The decision to make this change was collective, not
singular.  Myself and others were part of the decision.

JCT: Wouldn't you know it. The guy who's done more to slow
down the world-wide UNILETS project is in on shutting down
discussion of the world's premier discussion group. I always
called him a bankster mole and you can bet the banksters are
applauding him now.

SD: Being upset with the list owner means being upset with
a group, not an individual.

JCT: It wasn't the group who voted to shut down, it was the
owner. And being upset with the owner for shutting down the
group is not being upset with the guoup. What a sick puppy.

SD: Thank you for directing your energy towards the
continuation of this discussion forum under a new name.
Regards,  Stephen

JCT: As long as the discussions that went here get shut
down. We know another of the guilty. To be expected, of
course, that those who helped will come out in support.
---

>#8487From: hugh barnard <hughbarnardlists@...>
>Date: Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:02 am
>Subject: ccdiscuss is good for me, problem with very
specialised discussions hughbarnardl...

HB: Hi folks Just to say, I'll 'second' Ernie's suggest, the
content is more important than the name, that siad, it
seems a pretty good name. I'm a little wary of splitting up
the discussions into specialised parts:
- discussion threads deal with that to some extent
- it usually lead to vey low volumes because the
subject is fairly specialised anyway
- if (happily!) the new list is a victim of its own
success, we can always split it later..
Just my 2ccc (community currency cents), regards Hugh
---

>#8488From: "Marc Gauvin" <gauvin@...>
>Date: Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:40 am
>Subject: Re: Green fields proposal marc_gauvin

MG: Dear Stephen, Colin
Why did you not define the list and the rules appropriately?
Why have you not yet made the apporopriate technical steps
to orient the group to constructive ends?  Why do you
believe that by limiting input you are going to serve CCs
better?

JCT: Maybe serving CCs better isn't their aim.

MG: The list I have opened standard-exchanges, clearly
defines an activity that is constructive and eliminates the
possibility of ambiguous opened ended debate i.e. ONLY those
that wish to clarify the notion of currency and establish a
consensus with respect to the specification of currency will
join that group. Why did you not do something similar?
Why do you not create a more constuctive list but just limit
input? What is your declared goal written, signed and
delivered to the world?  Or can you not share it with us for
some strategic reason? Sincerely, Marc
---

>#8489From: Richard Kay <rich@...>
>Date: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:43 am
>Subject: Re: Green fields proposal rich@...

Todd Boyle wrote:

> I am baffled why the list owner wants to shut it off.

RK: AFAIK he doesn't. He just wants to spend his time
differently. As a long-standing multiple and serial
listowner I can fully understand why.

JCT: Don't call it "shut off." Call it something else.

> We the community, are the preponderance of the value here,
> the substance of the value and if there were justice in
> the world we would tell the "list owner" to piss off, and
> go away because we are going to keep talking here.

RK: Nothing to stop us continuing, but if you want an email
list to help us do it then someone has to own it.

JCT: The Journal can own it, it just doesn't have to censor
it.

> But in these times, those who have their scraps of paper,
> and their associated beliefs that they "own" the wires or
> the server, have got the right therefore to control the
> information exchanged between people, entirely different
> and much larger groups of people--- Those "owners"
> have got the legal power to shutoff our connections,
> and the infantile ego and power, so, they always use it.

RK: Todd, you really do seem to me very much the Internet
virgin.

JCT: That was meant to enflame.

RK: The protocols are the commons which either no-one or
everyone owns. The servers, lists and bandwidth (all plural
nouns - there is nosuch thing as "the server") all cost
someone something so have owners (also plural noun). That
which costs has the ownership of whoever pays. What is
common knowledge can (and should) belong to all.

JCT: It costs nothing to own a yahoogroup.

RK: You don't like current server or list options ? Fine -
run your own server if you can afford 20$US/month to do it
and have the inclination to learn how.

JCT: So don't questions what was done, obey, and go
elsewhere is his suggestion. And now some mumbo-jumbo:

RK: (A willingness to kick the mind-numbing addiction to
monopoly software designed by Microsoft to minimise your
technical understanding, resulting in virginal beliefs about
what the Internet is and how it works, and where this
monopoly exists? How many people spend $20/month or more and
the time needed to learn Linux/Unix communicating with their
mobile phones ? )

JCT: Irrelevant mumbo jumbo.

RK: If you want to run your own list

JCT: By first accepting quietly what you don't like.

RK: (less skill needed here than running your own server)
there are plenty of server operators (including myself)
welcoming those wanting to put in the effort of list
ownership (who can demonstrate they understand the minimal
responsibility this involves) for lists they are willing to
support.

JCT: Because there are servers ready, no reason to question
why this one is being shut down.

RK: If you don't want to pay the cost in money or time or
the learning curve to play this game, then (unless you want
those who can to think you are being silly) please don't
stand on the sidelines shouting "infantile ego" to those who
are willing to put their money and/or time where your mouth
is.

JCT: Cheap shot against a valid objection.

> Here are the classic behaviors: these are universal in all
> owners of telecommuncation or media:
> - extract a fee or tax, from the traffic, or
> - mine the personal information and derive undue gains
>from it, or,
> - censor or block some/all of the communication.

An argument supported by the idea that "the server" (singular
noun) is a monopoly ?

JCT: Just can't stay with the moral of the situation, always
going back to the hardware.

RK: Of course everyone has an agenda, Virgnia, but did you
imagine you didn't have one too ? And where ownership of
telecommunications and media are not monopolies, then
exactly why is the fact of people owning these having and
promoting agendas a problem ?

JCT: He avoids the issue of the righteousness of shutting it
down by pointing out how we can move.

> Be aware-- most of the world has moved on, to blogs.

RK: Blogs, like email lists, have owners with policies and
agendas about the content they are willing to carry. Both
sources of discussion can require maintenance to keep out
spam.

JCT: And IJCCR needs a way to keep out Turmel spam as
effectively as Kay's econ-lets kept it out.

RK: Some users prefer RSS to aggregate blog updates and some
prefer email lists as their preferred push technology, and
both methods are likely to be relevant for a long time to
come. Email is more convenient for me to keep up with many
lists, some of which are not used for long periods but which
then unexpectedly spring back to life after a longer outage
than my likely RSS newsfeed reconfiguration interval. If you
reckon you can move long-term discussion previously carried
out on IJCCR to a blogsite within your or some other
ownership you are very welcome to try.

JCT: You can try to save previous discussion but otherwise,
all those years of work and discussions will be gone.

> Another choice is just go to YahooGroups and start an
>email list called IJCCR, the hell with colin whoever he is.

RK: The IJCCR name and the identically named list on Yahoo
are Colin's brand and channel and he can do whatever he
likes to promote these.

JCT: That's right. The owner has the right to shut it down
no matter who objects. That's the nature of ownership.

RK: I see this in principle and legal reality as matters of
fact and not opinion.

JCT: He owns it and that's it. You'd think Richard was in on
the discussion (we didn't get to be in on) to shut it down.

RK: I don't see that you have any more right to
misappropriate this brand than any other.

JCT: It would be misappropriation for anyone to keep it
alive.

RK: Try doing that to Disney, Linux, Microsoft or Mozilla
and you would get sued.

JCT: That's right. Colin owns ijccr and can shut it down.

RK: Do this to IJCCR and if Colin chooses not to sue you for
it, then your misappropriation and dilution of his brand
will, in my view, greatly diminish whatever reputation you
may have within the CC community.

JCT: The guys who tries to keep it alive will lose
reputation while the guy who killed it keeps his.

RK: If you try to use this brand name for a discussion
purpose not sponsored by the International Journal of
Community Currency Research then I for one will not be
joining in your discussion.

JCT: Big loss.

> Another choice- we have lots of choices ranging from
> YouTube to audio teleconferenceing, to text messaging.
> But, another choice is a Riseup.net list.   These people
> understand the nature of the attack on our discussion.
> They know, our discussion will be attacked in various
> way, by owners, by police, by spammers... It is a pure,
> standup bunch of people who are determined to keep the
> servers running, provide email accounts and group email
> service, etc.

RK: In the UK "standup" means comedian. Well being comic can
certainly help communications along, but their channels will
be more technically sustainable if their server admins take
their clown hats off while they are doing the system admin
(;-).

JCT: Sadly, it's not the Brit definition being used.

RK: This also doesn't get you away from riseup.net owning
their server and having an agenda to further. Try starting
something there that causes them to tread too hard and
illegally on big enough toes and you will then either test
and stimulate to be more explicitly defined the limits of
their tolerance, or you will otherwise get them shut down.

JCT: How dare you try to keep discussion alive.

RK: Run your own server and host illegal content that annoys
people enough to want to stop you and this will happen through
your actions in respect of the usage contracts which you have
with your upstream providers. Best wishes, Richard.

JCT: Illegal content mumbo jumbo.
---

>#8490From: Todd Boyle <tboyle@...>
>Date: Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:24 pm
>Subject: Apologies for my post toddboyle

TB: I apologize for my post yesterday.

JCT: You apologize for being upset hat the moderator decide
to unaliterally end a discussion group. How dare you? He's
El Duce, Der Fuhrer, good people just bow, scrape, and obey.

TB: It was apparently inaccurate in ascribing the change to
a single individual, and it was infantile to attack his
motives and character.

JCT: No, it was a small, private group who ordered the
execution so that makes their motives and character all
okay.

TB: So, things are not broken as badly as I thought,

JCT: Yes, they are.

TB: Sorry for the disruption TOdd

JCT: I appreciated the sentiment since I felt the very same
way, still do. Just because he founded the group doesn't
give him the right, even if he has the power, to terminate
discussions for no good reason and because:

"CW: the new Editorial Board of the journal has decided that
this 'discussion list' is not fulfilling its original aim."

JCT: A new board has decided to change the rules and we know
who a few on that board, don't we. So the intent is to quell
debate and it's doubtful we can convince them to just leave
it alone alive when they're set on shutting it down. After
all, "this 'discussion list' is not fulfilling its original
aim," whatever that has now been determined to be.

So everyone whose posts are going down the memory hole has
little time to save their work. Me, I always cross-posted my
stuff to my own LETS Social Credit group [letssc] at
http://yahoogroups.com/group/letssc

If they'd kicked Turmel off the group, then it would have
died like Richard Kay's other group while wherever the
banking systems engineer moved to would continue
controversial discussions.

For sure, you know that you can join econ-lets or whatever
group Stephen, Richard and Ernie run to but you know the
censorship will make it as boring as Kay's econ-lets. I
invite those of you who want to engage in heated free
discussions to come on over to letssc where there is no
censorship though I manage to keep out the spam.

I especially invite my favorite shit-disturber, Bill Ryan,
over and others who do like to participate in or just read
the debates he and I generate. Unless the editorial board
that has banned discussion from this research group change
their minds. Ha! What possible reason could there be for
shutting down the world's premier group?



--
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: There was a CBC documentary Tuesday night Oct 23 on
Marc "The Narc" Emery, publisher of Cannabis Culture
Magazine, which will be repeated Saturday Oct 27 at 11p EDT.

Emery suppressed the story about Terry Parker's Pitt
decision where the judge extended Parker's constitutional
court exemption from marijuana prosecution "until the
government has complied with the court's ruling, while Alan
Young worked with Crown Attorney Lara Speirs to have
Parker's win set aside by Justice Chapnik.

Emery also suppressed Marc Paquette's "exemptions can be
prolonged by 1 doctor" Federal Court decision and let all
Canada's exemptees suffer having their exemptions expire
without telling them about Paquette's winning a way they
could all get their exemptions prolonged with only their
doctor's signature. Marc "The Narc" caused a lot of
suffering when he suppressed that story. I've met an
exemptee who had not been told, Mercier in Montreal, and he
wasn't too happy finding out what the Prince of Pot, really
a Prince of Rot, had done to him.

And of course, I enjoyed watching our narc mole's last
sheep-dipping fall apart. Here was our hemp hero sitting in
a Saskatchewan jail for trafficking (passing) a joint at a
marijuana rally with his supporters erecting a shrine to
their martyr outside! Emery must really be a threat if they
jail him for 3 months for merely passing a joint.

So I published the trial transcript showing his lawyer had
pleaded him guilty and Emery had then lied about it saying
it was a mistake by his lawyer who didn't know that he had
really wanted to put up a defence all along and it was only
accidentally let his lawyer plead him guilty.

Except I noticed that he had evidently not instructed her to
prepare a defence because she had gone in unprepared to
present a defence and Emery had not inquired what the
defence would be? Har har har har.

What a disaster in sheep-dipping for the narcs. It's not a
sheep-dipping they're going to high-light on any cop show
soon. Har har har har. Maxwell Smart (Agent 86) couldn't
have screwed up as badly as our hemp hero sitting in jail as
his cover gets blown. Especially with Maxwell Marc spending
a couple of months in jail while the law just also happened
to be invalid because he couldn't agree with Turmel who says
the law remains invalid until Parliament re-enacts it, not
judges.

That's the funniest part of it all. The whole time he's
cooling his ass in jail, the law had never been re-enacted
by Parliament as Justices Phillips, Rogin and Chen had said
it had to be before Alan Young's Hitzig court said to ignore
Parliament's Interpretation Act that said laws that had been
struck down were to be deemed repealed and to only deem them
absent until fixed by the courts, the greatest piece of
treason ever in Canada.

He's in jail because the law was resurrected by the courts
in Alan Young's Hitzig case, so says the Professeur
Saboteur. If Justices Phillips, Rogin and Chen are right,
Emery did his time while the law remained invalid. If
Justices Doherty, Goudge, Simmons are right and they have
the same power as Parliament to bring laws into force, okay,
he did his time while the judge's law had become valid. I'm
still betting that Judge Law is a travesty of justice and
that only Parliamentary Law is valid.

Ask any law student. Absolutely none are aware of whether
what these judges have done is right or wrong since they're
taught that whatever a judge does is right. Har har har.
Math rejects lording over their betters. Remember the
Nielsen Crown saying "they wouldn't have done if they
couldn't have done it so they can" when he couldn't provide
any answer to Judge Edward's question of whether a court can
resurrect a law that's been struck down.

Then I published a report from a witness to Emery's bust who
said that when the two cops came by and asked the crowd
"who's been smoking marijuana?" our Cannabis Captain
Courageous jumped out from the crowd to confess he had.

It was a complete set-up, as stale as the sheep-dipping
every undercover cop undergoes on TV, being arrested and
thrown in jail with the black sheep to pretend to be one of
them. Emery confessed and then pleaded guilty to get into
jail for passing a joint and establish his pseudo-hero
status. It really comes out differently when you find out he
jumped out of a crowd to confess when he didn't have to and
then pleaded guilty when he didn't have to give up without a
fight and then lied about it. The "Give up without a fight"
hero of our movement! Har har har.

Reminds me of him travelling around Canada getting busted
with less than 30 grams after I'd gone up on Parliament Hill
to get busted with over 3000 grams. After my high-roller act
challenging a life sentence, Emery's nickel-dimer act was
put on stage to steal the show. Of course, the bigger they
are, the harder they fall. He only has to be asked: why did
you plead guilty after you had confessed instead fighting it
to the Supreme Court?

The only good thing about it all is that the Alan Young
crowd who follow in Emery's footsteps keep getting
convicted, all helping establish that the law must have been
made valid again by the courts, if not Parliament, since
these heroes of the movement are all in jail. Still, it
would be lovely if they all followed their leader's example
and all took the dive.

Just ask him: where is the gain in following your example?
Har har har har har.

I love to tell people the truth about Marc the Narc's
Kamikaze Kannabis Kulture because it's so easily checked out
with any search for Emery and Turmel.

So, now we have the CBC's sheep-dipping extraordinaire. I
urge all to tape the segment on Canada's most notorious narc
mole and watch him help the government's case for the
existence of the prohibition. As with all narc mole cases,
if Emery wins his battle to export seeds, he wins nothing
for the movement. As always, Marc "the Narc" "Prince of Rot"
Emery's crusade is leading to nowhere.


--
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: These are the written representations of the CRTC on
why nothing could have been done to stop the Nazi Moderator
from denying me an equitable share of the broadcast time
because he had decided to bar visual aids in our
presentations and I insisted on using mine.

Court File No: A451-07

                   FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

BETWEEN:

                        John C. Turmel
                                                    Applicant

                             and
                Canadian Radio-Television and
                Telecommunications Commission
                                                   Respondent

                 APPLICATION UNDER Section 28
         of the Federal Courts Act,R.S.C. 1985 c. F-7


                  RESPONDENT'S MOTION RECORD

                      Table of Contents
                                                        Page
Written representations...................................2
Election-period broadcasting:
Debates, Public Notice CRTC 1995-44,15 March 1995........11

John Keogh
Senior General Counsel
Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission
Central Building, Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere
1 Promenade du Portage
Gatineau Quebec J8X 4B1
Tel/fax: 819-953-3990/0589

To: John C. Turmel
8-37 Colborne St. E.
Brantford N3T 2G3
Tel/fax: 519-753-0645


                   WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS

JK: 1. The respondent respectfully submits that the
applicant's motion dated October 4 2007 seeking an order of
mandamus or declaratory relief against the respondent should
be rejected for the following reasons.

2. First, neither an order of mandamus nor declaratory
relief can be awarded on an interlocutory basis.

JCT: All I wanted was a declaration that the format division
had not been equitable so far.

JK: Subsection 18(3) of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985
c. F-7 states that such remedies are available only on an
application for judicial review.

JCT: Which are heard too late to offer any relief. Hence my
motion for interim "keep the status quo" relief by
preventing further broadcasts of the inequitable debate.

JK: Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7
18.(1) Subject to section 28, the Federal Court has
exclusive jurisdiction.
(a) to issue an injunction, writ of certiorari, writ of
prohibition, writ of mandamus or writ of quo warranto, or
grant declaratory relief, against any federal board,
commission or other tribunal;...
(3) The remedies provided for in subsections (1) and (2) may
be obtained only on an application for judicial review made
under section 18.1

JCT: And I'm not looking for a declaration on the
application that the format had been inequitable, I wanted a
declaration on the motion that the format is inequitable so
far and leave it up to the CRTC how to fix that.

JK: The applicant's motion is in effect an attempt to have
his judicial review decided by way of motion rather than the
normal procedure for applications.

JCT: No, the judicial review will decide whether the debate
was inequitable and whether the CRTC, therefore, failed to
provide an equitable debate. The motion was to decide that
the debate so far was inequitable and should be fixed.

JK: Brissette v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration) 2002, 228 F.T.R. 971 at para. 11:
"I am of the view that mandamus, by definition, cannot be
characterized as interim relief. [See Attorney General of
Canada and Solicitor General of Canada v. Robert Gould
[1984] 1 F.C. 1133 (F.C.A.)]. The consequence of ordering
mandamus would be to finally determine the issue of whether
there is in this case a statutory duty on the Appeal
Division pursuant to s.169 of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act (IRPA) to issue written reasons for its
decision dismissing the motion to reopen the appeal.
The purpose of an interlocutory injunction is to preserve or
restore the status quo, not to give the applicant his
remedy."

JCT: Where the opponents have received so much extra
exposure so far, I didn't want them to receive even more and
I am therefore seeking to preserve the status quo by
restricting the re-broadcast of the inequitable division.

JK: Jaballah v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration (2002), 222 F.T.R. 197, 2002, FCT 694 at para 7:
"I am not satisfied that such jurisdiction exists on an
interlocutory motion. In this regard, it might be argued
that the distinction between, on the one hand, declaring the
applicants to be Convention refugees, and on the other hand,
ordering the CRDD to so find, is a distinction without a
difference. The applicants did not proceed with their claim
to declaratory relief for good reason, in my view, in that
the long-standing jurisprudence of this Court is to the
effect that declaratory relief is not available on motion on
an interlocutory or interim basis. See, for example, Francis
v. Mohawks of Akwesasne (Bank of Indians) (1993), 62 F.T.R.
314 (T.D.); Arctic Offshore Marine Services Ltd. v. Canada
(1986) 4 F.T.R. 183 (T.D.). In view of this case law, I have
doubts as to the availability on motion of an order
directing the CRDD to find the applicants to be Convention
refugees."

3. Second, the applicant's request for an order of mandamus
against the respondent is essentially moot given that the
provincial election of October 10 2007 has already occurred.

JCT: Because they're not set up to fix things before
they're finalized, once they are final, they can't fix
things anymore.

JK: There would be little point in ordering the respondent
to ensure that the free-time partisan political broadcasts
be made equitable now that the election has taken place.

JCT: Too bad the CRTC wasn't competent enough to fix things
on time. And because they're not good enough to fix things
on time, they argue they can't be fixed because they're now
not fixable.

JK: 4. Third, there is no legal requirement that televised
debates feature all rival parties and candidates in one or
more programs.

JCT: There is a legal requirement that exposure be
equitable. Of course, let's now see how how a bunch of
lawyers can corrupt that concept.

JK: The applicant contends in his affidavit that he was
unfairly ejected from a candidate's debate for the riding of
Brant hosted by Rogers Television on September 18 2007 in
violation of the "CRTC Regulations".

JCT: I didn't say "unfair," I said unwarranted. There's a
difference and I guess they'd prefer to defend against what
I didn't allege instead of what I did.

JK: Section 8 of the Television Broadcasting Regulations
deals with political broadcasts (the applicant refers to s.9
in his notice of motion and application, which is concerned
with ethnic programs.) Section 8 requires that broadcasters
allocate time for broadcasting programs, advertisements or
announcements of a partisan political character on an
equitable basis to accredited political parties and rival
candidates.

JCT: That's been the history of political broadcasts in
Canada so far. Of course, the arithmetical concept of
equitableness has really been warped by a warped profession.

JK: Subsection 27(4) of the Broadcasting Distribution
Regulations imposes the same obligation with regard to
broadcasts on a community channel which include the debate
program in question. However, in R. v. Canadian Broadcasting
Corp (1993) S.C.C.A. No. 524, it was held that an election
debate did not constitute a program of a "partisan political
character" since it presented a number of different
political viewpoints.

JCT: Har har har har. Boy, is that ever stupid. If a show
promotes one viewpoint of political character, it's partisan
but if promotes two viewpoints, it is no longer partisan.
Only lawyer-trained judges could come to such a patently
ridiculous conclusion. Har har har. And I'll now have to
challenge it, not doubt. Har har har. How absolutely inane.

JK: In response to this decision the respondent issued a
public notice (Election-period broadcasting: Debates, Public
Notice CRTC 1995-44, 15 March 1995) stating that it would no
longer require that debates programs feature all rival
parties or candidates in one or more programs.

JCT: They found themselves some math-class rejects on the
bench to conclude that debates can exclude some parties and
rival candidates and still be equitable enough to be
democratic and then immediately issued a regulation
enshrining that ludicrous notion in law. Har har har har.

JK: According to the public notice, licensees will have
satisfied the balance requirement of the Broadcasting Act,
S.C. 1991, c. 11, if reasonable steps are taken to ensure
that their audiences are informed of the main issues and of
the positions of all candidates through their public affairs
programs generally.

JCT: Notice that they don't have to ensure fair exposure;
they only have to "take steps to ensure," take "reasonable"
steps to ensure. And they'll be able to alibi whatever
horridly unfair outcome as proper since "reasonable" steps
had been taken even if they didn't work. Har har har. What
fun it is to delve into the legal-trained mind.

JK: In previous letters to the applicant (Exhibits B and F
of the applicants motion record, the respondent has made
clear that it is not a censor board and that it does not
interfere in the editorial decisions of broadcasters.
Television Broadcasting Regulations, 1987, S.O.R./87-49

JCT: I'm not asking them to interfere. I'm only asking them
to tell their broadcaster that the division is not fair so
far and urge them to do make it fair before it's too late to
fix.

JK: POLITICAL BROADCASTS
8. During an election period, a licensee shall allocate time
for the broadcasting of programs, advertisements or
announcements of a partisan political character on an
equitable basis to all accredited political parties and
rival candidates represented in the election or referendum.

JCT: That's the plain text of the law, except they dropped
the words "qualitatively and quantitatively" that also used
to be there. And that concept has now been corrupted to
allow exclusion of some parties and candidates. Lawyer
thinking on the job.

JK: Broadcasting Distribution Regulations, S.O.R./97-555
27(4) If a licensee provides time on the community channel
in a licensed area during an election period for the
distribution of programming of a partisan political
character, the licensee shall allocate that time on an
equitable basis among all accredited political parties and
rival candidates.

JCT: Rogers Cable had to provide equitable time. And Rogers
didn't provide me with equitable time because Fuhrer Philp
changed the rules to ban visual aids and party props as
unfair for no stated or logical reason and despite consensus
among the candidates that the ban was not wanted.

JK: R. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (1993) 51 C.P.R. (3d)
192 (Ont.C.A.) leave to appeal to S.C.C. denied [1993]
S.C.C.A. No 524:

JCT: What kind of case is this. Who's R.?

"We agree with Judge Kerr and Borins J. [42 C.P.R. (3d) 252,
72 C.C.C. (3d) 545, 16 W.C.B. (2d) 110] that the national
debates are not programs of "partisan political character"
within the meaning of s.8 because they present a number of
varying political points of view on questions posed by a
number of media representatives.

JCT: More intellectually-challenged thinking from the
Ontario bench. Exposure of one political view is partisan,
exposure of two or more but not all is not partisan! Say it
ain't so. It's too stupid to be true.

JK: While the statements made by each of the participants
are undoubtedly partisan, the program itself clearly is not.

JCT: You have to wonder how legal-training can get a human
brain to mis-fire in such a way. One political viewpoint is
partisan but more political viewpoints is not! Har har har.

JK: In this regard, we are of the view that the position
expressed by Arnup J.A. at p.18 of R. v. C.F.R.B. Ltd (1976)
31 C.P.R. (2d) 13, 30 C.C.C. (2d) 386 (Ont.C.A.) is apt:
"In my view, a partisan political broadcast is one intended
to favor one candidate over the other or others in an
election..."

JCT: But if it favors two candidates over the other or
others, that's not partisan! Har har har.

JK: In addition, we do not accept the argument of counsel
for the appellant that each statement of a party leader in
the debate constitutes an "announcement"within the meaning
of the regulation.""

JCT: So when party leaders orate their party positions,
those are not announcements! What incredibly warped thinking
and I get to pick it apart over the next few years. Boy, is
this going to be over more than the right to wear my party
button.

JK: Election-period broadcasting: Debates, Public Notice
CRTC 1995-44, 15 March 1995:
"In view of this judgment, the Commission will no longer
require that so-called "debates" programs feature all rival
parties or candidates in one or more programs. The
Commission considers that licensees will have satisfied the
balance requirement of the Broadcasting Act if reasonable
steps are taken to ensure that their audiences are informed
of the main issues and of the positions of all candidates
and registered parties on those issues through their public
affairs programs generally. The Commission still believes
that news coverage should generally be left to the editorial
judgment of the broadcast licensee."

JCT: They've always been allowed to exclude candidates from
the news and it was always the free-time that we had an
equitable right to. Now, they can exclude candidates from
the free-time too.

JK: 5. Fourth, even if there had been a violation of the Act
or the regulations, the applicant would not be entitled to
an order of mandamus since he has not established a clear
legal right to a public duty which the respondent is obliged
to perform.

JCT: Actually, an early Federal Court judgment of Justice
Walsh said that a candidate did have sufficient legal
interest in being treated equitably to be entitled to the
public duty to ensure equitable exposure exercised.

JK: Under s. 12(2) of the Broadcasting Act, the respondent
may issue a mandatory against a licensee who is in violation
of, inter alia, the Act, the regulations, or a license
condition, but this is a discretionary power. It is well
established that the presence of a discretion to act
precludes an order of mandamus: see e.g. Turmel v. C.R.T.C.
[1981] 2 F.C. 411, 117 D.L.R. (3d) 697. It is worth noting
that the applicant has brought similar applications against
the respondent in the past and that they have been rejected
by the court on the grounds that the respondent was not
under any duty to act: see: e.g. Turmel v. Canada (CRTC)
(1987) 14 F.T.R. 22.

JCT: They have the duty to ensure free-time exposure is
democratic, equitable, fair. Tough to do when you allow
exclusions that are still considered fair.

JK: Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c. 11
12(2) The Commission may, by order, require any person to
do, forthwith or within or at any time and in any manner
specified by the Commission, any act or thing that the
person is or may be required to do pursuant to this Part or
to any regulation, license, decision or order made or issued
by the Commission under this Part and may by order, forbid
the doing or continuing of any act or thing that is contrary
to this Part or to any such regulation, license, decision or
order.

JCT: So the Commission does have the power to push Rogers to
do the right thing but it does not have the competence to do
it before it's too late.

JK: Turmel v. C.R.T.C. [1981] 2 F.C. 411, 117 D.L.R. (3d)
697 at para 2:

"It is fundamental law that mandamus lies to secure the
performance of a public duty in the performance of which the
applicant has sufficient legal interest. The applicant must
show that he has demanded the performance of the duty and
that performance of it has been refused by the authority
obliged to discharge it. ...

JCT: This was from the decision of Federal Court Justice
Walsh. The part they cut out said: "plaintiff herein who has
sufficient legal interest." Imagine cutting out the part where
the judge said that a candidate did have sufficient legal
interest so they can now argue I don't! Lawyers, the sleaze
never ends.

JK: Another principle is that a mandamus will not be issued
to order a body as to how to exercise its jurisdiction or
discretion. See Judicial Review of Administrative Action,
S.A. de Smith, 2nd ed., page 565 in which he states:
"In one sense, every body entrusted with the powers of
decision is under a duty to apply the law correctly but not
all errors of law are redressable by mandamus."

JCT: I never ask the court to tell them how to do their
duty, I only ask the court to tell them they haven't done it
yet.

JK: Turmel v. Canada (C.R.T.C.) (1987) 14 F.T.R. 22:

JCT: This is the decision of Justice Joyal:

TK: "The applicant asks this Court to intervene in the
arrangements made for a televised political debate in
Ontario scheduled for August 17 1987. These arrangements
provide for the participation of the three major party
leaders engaged in the Ontario elections. Other parties are
excluded. The applicant is not happy with this. He cites
Section 8 of the Television Broadcasting Regulations which
enjoin broadcasters to provide "equitable" exposure to all
parties and rival parties and rival leaders. He argues that
the exclusion or minor candidates is contrary to the
Regulations and that the Court should enjoin the respondents
to order the broadcasters, namely C.B.C., C.T.V., and Global
to invite leaders and representatives of the smaller parties
to participate in this broadcast. ...

JCT: Let's take a look at the paragraph they didn't cite:
"The applicant adopts an ingenious approach to his plea.
Although egregiously involved in politics and an
unsuccessful seeker of elected office in numerous elections,
he approaches this Court as a private citizen who feels he
has a right to hear from the minor parties. He stoutly
argues that the air waves are a public trust and that the
exclusive air time given the major parties effectively
precludes him from finding out what the other parties are
all about, what their policies are and what solutions they
propose to single and multiple issues facing the public.
Democratic elections, he says, require an intelligent
electorate, an electorate which is left in the dark on this
and which is limited in its political judgment process to
the oligopoly position of the major parties."

JCT: Then they continued the judges' ruling:

JK: "The applicant admits having had many runs at the cat on
this point. He has had no success in this Court in similar
applications made in 1980, 1983, 1984. He had enjoyed some
success in filing ex post facto complaints with the CRTC
which provoked the latter to issue guidelines in 1985 and
1987 respecting the application of the "equitable" principle
in the field of free political broadcasts.
These guidelines, however, do not help the applicant's case.
The Court's power to intervene and impose its will on the
CRTC has been traversed often enough. Furthermore, the law
respecting orders in the nature of mandamus has not changed.
This Court has no power of prior restraint. The Court must
adopt the principle laid down in Karavos v. Toronto &
Gillies (1948) 3 D.L.R. 294, that mandamus will only lie
when an applicant can firmly establish a clear legal right
to have a duty performed which is actually due and
obligatory. There is no evidence before me that any duty in
that respect is wanting."

JCT: And the Justice Joyal's final thought:
"I am not suggesting that there is no merit to the
applicant's quest for what he considers a better deal for
minor parties. His case, however, does not raise legal
issues, it raises policy issues which this court cannot
entertain."

JK: 6. Finally, any mandatory order or declaratory relief
would be improper without the respondent first having
conducted an inquiry into the matter.

JCT: They need an inquiry to judge whether a division is
fair. What to expect from a profession who found arithmetic
a challenge.

JK: The proper procedure if a complainant is unsatisfied
with how the respondent has handled a complaint related to a
broadcaster is to request a review and determination of the
matter under s.12(1) of the Broadcasting Act.

JCT: After it's too late to do anything about it. We know
how lawyers think, then they can argue it's now mooted.

JK: (The Applicant was directed to the proper complaint
procedure on at least two occasions (Exhibits B and F of the
applicants motion record). The respondent cannot be expected
to have issued any mandatory order before it has inquired,
heard and determined the matter.

JCT: It depends how trivial the issue is. Division of a pie
doesn't take an inquiry of rocket scientists.

JK: In this case, the applicant is not contending that such
an inquiry should have been held. Rather he is attempting to
skip this important procedural step and have this court
pronounce directly on the matter.

JCT: Sure, I want to skip the delay portion since the issue
has been reduced to a question of whether a simple division
is equitably democratic.

JK: In the respondent's respectful view, this should not be
permitted. Even if the remedies the applicant is seeking
were available, they would have to follow an inquiry and
determination by the respondent."

JCT: But remedies after it's too late aren't remedies at
all.

JK: Broadcasting Act, S.R. 1991, c.11
12(1) Where it appears to the Commission that
(a) any person has failed to do any act or thing that the
person is required to do pursuant to this Part or to any
regulation, license, decision or order made or issued by the
Commission under this Part, or has done or is going any act
or thing in contravention of this Part, or of any such
regulation, license, decision or order, or
(b) the circumstances may require the Commission to make any
decision or order or to give any approval that it is
authorized to make or give under this Part or under any
regulation or order made under this Part,
the Commission may inquire into, hear and determine the
matter.

JCT: It's tough dealing with incompetence in government.

JK: Dated October 11 2007
John Keogh
Senior General Counsel
Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission
Central Building, Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere
1 Promenade du Portage
Gatineau Quebec J8X 4B1
Tel/fax: 819-953-3990/0589

JCT: As for some outside opinion on this election issue,
here's a blog of a local Brantford voter:

>http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=14421886&Myt\
oken=59B939AF-4E82-4D48-8A5638BD6BF6441277532022
>Date: Oct 03 2007
>The Election Blog
>Current mood:  accomplished
>Category: News and Politics

[...Just then, it hit me. I need to track down an advance
poll and vote in the provincial election! Since I've just
moved recently, I may need to dole out proof of residence in
lieu of a voter's card, and I don't want to take the chance
on election day of not being able to actually vote.   If I
needed anything else to prove my eligibility, I wanted to
get it over with today. I checked out the website, found an
advance poll, and went there during my lunch.

Did I vote for John Turmel?
Did I vote Liberal?
Did I vote NDP?
Those who know me can figure it out.

Speaking of John Turmel, I just heard that he was kicked out
of a televised debate by some assclown moderator who works
for the Brantford Expositor, and denied the right to
participate in subsequent candidates' debates.

Turmel, as you may or may not know, is a maverick politician
and activist who has achieved infamy in the Guinness Book of
World Records as the politician who has run in more
elections than anyone else in history.

Not only is he a record-holder, he is now a resident of
Brantford. As Turmel fancies himself a "professional poker
player", he has taken residence just a couple blocks away
from our city's infamous casino.

They say that there's a fine line between genius and
insanity. Turmel straddles that line, but I believe that
most of the world views him as insane.

His ideas for a non-monetary bartering system are
revolutionary, well-thought-out, and highly intelligent.
His advocacy of legalizing marijuana use is backed with
extensive fact and research.

However, his ideas are far too left-of-centre to ever see
Turmel achieve anything beyond "shit disturber" status,
which he quickly did this year during the candidates'
debate.

I was very amused to see that a local high school denied
Turmel the right to participate in a debate due to his
advocacy of marijuana. The reason cited was that marijuana
use was "against school policy". Hmmm.

When I was younger, I used to attend Brantford's
"International Villages Festival", which was essentially a
series of country-themed drunk tanks located in churches,
schools, and community centres throughout the city.

Drinking in school gyms is also apparently "against school
policy", yet year after year, it happened.

Turmel has once again been given the short end of the stick
due to his controversial nature.

Perhaps with a change in electoral process, I could have
voted for Turmel AND the political party that I'd like to
see oust the Liberals.

Excuse me while I go back to bitching about politics.
I can do that now that I have voted.

JCT: He may not have been able to vote for me but labelling
Naxi moderator Tim Philp an "assclown" made my day.


--
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've always wanted to reproduce one great booklet and
now someone has:

http://www.dayspringgatherings.org/pdfs/Seven_Financial_Conspiracies_which_have_\
Enslaved_the_American_People_.pdf

JCT: Which one was the worst? Why?



--
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

>http://medpot.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=56726
>Fourth drug conviction for Marc Boyer, who has terminal
illness
>Gerry Bellett, Vancouver Sun
>Date: Thursday, October 11, 2007

GB: VANCOUVER - Former Marijuana Party candidate Marc Boyer has
been sentenced to three months in jail after pleading guilty
in Vancouver Provincial Court to possession of marijuana for
the purpose of trafficking.

JCT: Another on the Alan Young - Marc Emery team of losers
pleading guilty rather than challenging the existence of the
law.

GB: Judge Conni Bagnall ordered Boyer -- who suffers from a
terminal illness -- to be jailed, saying this was his fourth
conviction for a drug offence and the third in the last
three years involving marijuana.

JCT: Imagine jailing a terminally-ill person for trying to
obtain the best medicine! What monsters these magistrates
can be.

GB: Boyer ran as the Marijuana Party candidate in the
Vancouver Quadra riding in the last federal election. He was
arrested by Vancouver police officers July 13 in Grandview
Park on Commercial Drive. The officers had gone to the park
on another matter but could smell marijuana and found a
small group of people sitting in the park smoking. Boyer was
seen trying to conceal something and police found 16
marijuana cigarettes under his leg. He was arrested and
searched and just over one pound of marijuana was found on
him packaged, as if for sale, along with $965 in cash. The
court was told that Boyer's cellphone rang and one of the
officers answered the call which was from a person asking
for drugs to be delivered. Police found pamphlets on Boyer
advertising home delivery of marijuana and giving the number
of his cellphone.

JCT: Sure looks like another Emery-style sheep-dipping.
Everyone remembers Marc jumping out of the Regina crowd when
exactly the same thing happened. Then pleading guilty so he
could do time and become a hero of the movement, just like
any narc mole movie where they let their agent get busted
with the black-sheep so the black-sheep take him in. Or
better, let him lead! Har har har har. Anyway, it's except
for him not jumping out of the crowd to get arrested like
Emery did, it boils down to the very same impression,
helping establish the aura that the law is alive if a savvy
Marijuana Party warrior bows down before the law. More like
taking a dive. Emery, for sure. Then again, Boyer didn't
fight, he just folded. Right out of the Marc Emery playbook.

GB: Bagnall rejected Boyer's submission that because his
birth was never registered in the usual fashion and he does
not have a birth certificate he does not "hold a person"
under the Criminal Code meaning he has "a void contract with
society itself."

JCT: Har har har har. One of the capital letter guys.
Imagine a galley slave telling his whip-master that he
shouldn't be there because they spelled his name in capital
letters.

"He says that he instead 'holds a person' under the
Elections Act. He argues that this means that although
Canadian laws apply to him he can seek protection from
prosecution for his beliefs in the fact of his membership in
the Marijuana Party.

JCT: Pretty obvious gibberish, isn't it.

"Mr. Boyer's beliefs were the subject of many of his
comments. He believes that according to the Bible, God gave
all 'wind-pollinated herbs' as a gift to mankind. This
category includes marijuana," Bagnall wrote in her reasons
for judgment.

JCT: I approve using Bible Law in court. I have too.
Nehemiah 5:10 (old bibles, it's been changed in newer Good
News Bibles.)

GB: However, the judge, who said Boyer was unrepentant,
dismissed all this and said while he is entitled to hold any
view he wishes about the legality of marijuana, his opinion
was irrelevant to the issue of whether he could be
prosecuted.

JCT: Gibberish is easily proven irrelevant.

GB: Bagnall found mitigating factors in sentencing were that
Boyer was terminally ill and used marijuana to ease the
symptoms of his disease and that he sells marijuana "within
the loose structure of a compassion club."

JCT: And he could have argued the December 2002 Montreal
Compassion Club case where they were found not guilty
because their trafficking was for medical use. Too bad such
opportunities to fight the system are always missed by the
people associated with the Clutz Court Professeur Saboteur
team.


--
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: Chad Csomor called me to say that he had uploaded nine
clips from the Turmel movie, produced Chad and his brother
Chris Csomor.



--
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 got this fax refusing a short notice motion for
relief before the cheating is official:

Federal Court of Canada
180 Queen St. W.
Toronto, ON, M5V 3L6

Oct 5 2007

John C. Turmel
Fax: 519-753-0645

MEMORANDUM

Re: A-451-07
John C. Turmel v. C.R.T.C.

The Court (Richard C.J.) has instructed the Registry to
inform the Applicant that the request for an oral hearing
will not be entertained at this time. The motion which was
received on Friday Oct. 5 2007 is to procced in accordance
with the provisions of Rules 364 to 369. Upon a reply having
been filed or the expiration of the time to do so, the Court
will dispose of the motion in writing or fix a time and
place for an oral hearing of same.

JCT: So, if the inequitable debate made the election unfair,
Federal Court Chief Justice Richard will fix it after the
election by...

--
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: Tuesday Oct 2 2007 morning, the Telfer retirement home
in Paris Ontario gave us all 10 minutes for speeches. It was
taped by the Rogers TV news team and I bet one of them it
wouldn't make the evening news. I explained how LETS around
the world would allow oldsters to use timebank facilities to
obtain services from the younger generation. How personal
access to sociable interest-free loans from the Bank of
Canada would solve so many problems.

I did mention that for those of us who don't think the
Taliban did 911, Bush did it, then this is the first war
where Canadians are wearing the black hats, Canadians are
the bad guys. We've got to bring them home. I should have
mentioned that we should be apologizing to the Taliban
Government for having believed a liar like Bush in the first
place.

In the afternoon, I did an accordion concert at Amber Lea
Home.

In the evening, there was an election debate by the
Agricultural Association in Mount Pleasant. Most the
questions were about lack of money for particular things
that needed to be done with one question on the Proportional
Representation Question. People are under the mis-impression
that while the first group of MPPs are elected by ridings,
the second group are chosen by their parties.

I pointed out that the present "first past the pole" wins is
unrepresentative in that 40% of the vote gets 70% of the
seats while 10% of the vote gets none even if it is fair.

If it was fully proportional and a party that got 30% of the
vote got 30% of the seats, everyone would agree that would
be fair. People could vote for the party and the party would
then choose its cream of the crop. That's fair too.

So a combination of two fair mechanisms that deliver a more
representative distribution has to be even better. So I
called it a no-brainer. Everything to gain in a larger menu
of ideas and nothing to lose but the unrepresentativeness of
the present situation. I think most agreed because it got a
good round of applause.

And of course, I explained how farming should be fun.
Planting the crop, tending it, nurturing it, reaping your
harvest, having to market it! Marketing! What a nightmare.
Then I explained how Argentinian farmers could buy tractors
and supplies for IOUs for grain at the dock, the more grain
they grow, the more purchasing power they have, while
Canadian farmers had to go through marketing boards to make
sure they don't grow too much! Har har har har. Argentinian
farmers didn't have any marketing problems once their grain
became the basis for their grain pesos. We could do the same
but not while you elect one of the other candidates.

>Brantford Expositor, Oct 3 2007
>John-Paul Zronik

JPZ: Independent candidate John Turmel participated in the
debate.

JCT: Imagine, getting to participate in a debate is news.

JPZ: promoting a system of social currency he said could
help local farmers.

JCT: Yes, unlike the others who expressed their sincere
desire to help so that there was no need to expound on those
fervent dreams, John Turmel promoted something that could
help, and so there was no need to expound on that technical
design either.

And then the last meeting of the election in the village of
St. George, 10 miles north of Brantford. I hadn't been
invited but an organizer said that a member who had attended
the meeting in Mt. Pleasant had said to expect me. As I was
walking in, I overheard one person telling an other that the
excluded candidate had behaved the evening before. I
quipped, "Of course I behave when I get an invitation. I
only mis-behave when I don't.

I was the only one who raised the issue of financing the
decommissioning of nuclear with Ontario Hydro Dollars. The
Tory even said we had to keep nuclear because it was
affordable. Sure, toxic but affordable.

Each candidate had been given a specific topic to
specialized on for 3 minutes, me getting health care. So I
did part of my poem to Her Majesty from
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/pomlizas.txt

A mayor faced with rising costs and shrinking revenues,
To study any proposition, he would not refuse.
"So many think the job of being mayor is such a snap,
But the decisions that I'm faced with are an ugly trap.

With tools, materials and trades that cover total range,
Yet one ingredient is lacking, money to exchange.
If snowstorm hits the city and there are no funds to pay,
What does my council have to do to clear the snow away?

We pledge a million dollar bond to banks to get the cash,
With which we pay the skillful men who clear snow in a flash.
The merchants gladly take the funds for soon they have to pay,
The taxes for the snow removal that was done that day.

But though a million principle was spent, we must request,
That citizens be taxed for principle and interest.
To budget who gets scarce resources isn't ever fun,
But interest on city's debt is always number one.

Whatever rate the bankers set is due amount I pay,
Unhappily, which projects live or die's my only say.
But if it's true Greendollars serve as well as Locals tell:
Why shouldn't government be one to try it out as well?

When another snowstorm hits without the funds to pay,
We'll test to see if LETS Greendollars are a better way.
This time we pledge the million bond to Treasury instead,
And see if use of Green will get us very much ahead.

The merchant should accept Greendollars as another way,
His taxes needed for the snow removal, he can pay.
Again we'll spend a million but the tax to be assessed,
Including only principle without the interest.

With Green we'd pay for road repairs and all would gladly take,
Greendollars from the working men so payment all could make;
And we could build our hospitals and all would take as pay,
Greendollars to buy medicine and service they purvey.

Today, in our society, where money clearly lacks,
Who could refuse some paper anyone may use for tax?
Greendollar paychecks could be earned by all desiring work,
The opportunity to pull their weight so few would shirk.

The only question left is how the tax should be assessed,
For goods and services? A simple formula to test.
For services, we'd levy tax at end of every year.
For assets, tax to pay depreciation. It's so clear.
The government that spent the most and had the highest tax,
Would be the government providing citizens the max.
JCT: At one point, Rob pointed out that many of us on stage
have only been politicians for 14 days. I quipped "28
years."

One question dealt with chances of winning and I pointed out
that it had nothing to do with ideas and programs, it had to
do with popularity and gambling. That's why the media
constantly refer to elections as races and treat them
accordingly.

There are two basic groups, the party teams. Dave's got his
1000 drivers ready to drive the 10,000 people who like him
to the polls every election, team people who don't follow
any debates, who don't read any programs, who just vote the
same color all their lives because Daddy told them that was
their team.
And then there are the gamblers, the ones who think they're
trying to pick the winner. Oh look, Brian has a lot of
signs, he looks like he's got a lot of support and might
win, I'll bet on Brian." That's why signs are so important,
to get the gambler vote. I'd bet under 10% give any thought
to the process.

But the high-light of the evening was the greatest barb I've
ever used. Back in 1985, I had been in an election where the
winner had not defended my right to participate in a
previous debate and I'd used an incredibly vicious zinger
that made the evening news about the debate. Later, while I
was vacationing in Florida, I got a call from CBC just
before New Year to tell me I'd be receiving a Book of
Quotations prize for having won the "quote of the year
1985." At the end of the evening, I hit Dave Levac with my
1985 Zinger of the year. Other than Dave's supporters, it
brought the house down.

First I pointed out explained how I had that evening used
press clippings, Toronto Dollars, Guelph Dollars, Maritime
Hours, my Engineer hard-hat, my Royal Flush tie, my LETS
diskette lapel sticker, to help me in my presentations. I
had done that in my first election against Dave back in
2003, right?
Then Tim Philp decided that since no one else was using
visual aids, he could hurt my presentation and no one else's
by banning props and party paraphenalia. So the fuhrer of
the Rogers TV in Brantford changed the usual rules and
ordered that candidates would no longer be allowed to use
visual aids or party paraphenalia.

When I cornered him in telling us why, he said that since
Rogers were putting our names and party on the screen, it
would be "unfair" for us to use our buttons too. Har har har
har. What a donkey reason. Not one candidate agreed with him
but he stuck to his fuhrer script and ejected me from the
debate for having disobeyed the Fuhrer's Rules.

Oh, he also gave himself, the Nazi moderator (someone else
called him) the right to quiz some candidates more closely,
the right to extend the time for subjects he was interested
in, the right to stick his opinions into our debate. No one
was happy with that but the Fuhrer insisted and no one could
stand up to Big Brother.

Except me and he used the police to take me away. For
disobeying his rule, his rule against showing party buttons.

Then after Philp got away with perverting the debate, Sandy
Hess, principal of Pauline Johnson decided she'd corrupt the
process too, called the police to charge me with trespassing
if I attempted to participate in the debate.

Then I showed the whole page Expositor article on the PJ
Debate with no story about me for their readers because the
principal had denied me access to the students. No picture,
no program, just Turmel was not invited to participate.

Then I showed them the Expositor picture of the police
taking me away at the behest of the elite at the Brantford
Chamber of Commerce so I could not participate in their
election debate from which I was the only person excluded.

Finally, how the elite university women of Brantford had the
police remove me from their debate because I didn't have a
party and the university women of Brantford don't think
independent ideas need be heard.

And through it all, Dave Levac sat there doing nothing while
his opponent was being cheated. As long as Dave kept telling
moderators he'd come no matter what they did to Turmel,
they'd keep corrupting our game. I said: Dave, you had the
power to make them let me stay. You the sitting MPP could
have said: "I won't stand for having Turmel saying I didn't
beat him fair and square. If everyone isn't treated the
same, I won't come." No organizer would have gone ahead if
you had refused to participate in a crooked contest. They
would have all backed down. Sure, the others also didn't do
anything but when Mr. Big isn't going to resist, what do you
want them to do. I hold you responsible. So you had a chance
to show some leadership and you really blew it.
I think you should go into municipal politics. I guess you
might be trusted to take care of my garbage but it's obvious
you can't be trusted to take care of my rights."

The non-Levac supporters erupted in applause. It was the hit
of the night. Even Tory Dan McCreary agreed with Turmel's
point about Levac showing no leadership. So, do you think
the zinger of the night was sniffed out by the Expositor's
nose for news? Ha:

>New Hwy 24 on minds of St. George voters
>Brantford Expositor, Oct 4 2007
>Michael-Allan Marion
Turmel, who has for years promoted the LETS system of credit
to eradicate interest costs in financing, said mortgage and
other interest-bearing financing is making the cost of
housing too high for people to stay close to their
employment.

JCT: Nothing on Dave being fit to take care of our garbage
but not fit to take care of our rights. Of course, if the
media aren't good for protecting their favorites from
biggest put-downs, what good would they be at all?

Anyway, Expositor misses 1985 Zinger of the Year.


--
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 Expositor printed my rebuttal to the Turmel's
Turmoil editorial but the proof backing up my points was
dropped because:

>Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 11:39:59 -0400
>From: opinion@... (OPINION)
>Subject: Re: Turmel: Good urls
>To: turmel@...

Mr. Turmel: These URLs link to a page urging readers to sign
up for Yahoo groups. I have removed them from your letter.
David Judd

JCT: So they did print:

>He should not have been banned
>Brantford Expositor, Oct 5 2007
>Letter to the editor

The Expositor's Sept. 29 editorial, Turmel's turmoil," could
not condone the Pauline Johnson principal for barring her
adult student voters from the ideas of one of the candidate
but you argued that Michael-Allan Marion's report on my
behavior at a 2006 federal election candidates debate made
her not being democratic all OK. Even if Marion's report had
been true, barring me for caustic remarks is still not very
persuasive reason to dispense with democratically letting
voters hear all their available choices.

Just as I have had to complain about Marion fabricating the
story about Tim Philp ordering Brantford Police to eject me
from this 2007 Rogers debate for making continued caustic
comments, which I had not, I complained about him
fabricating these caustic comments I had not made at a
debate which I had taped back in the 2006 election.

JCT: Judd cut out the next three paragraphs:

http://yahoogroups.com/group/brantford/message/1644 is the
transcript of the tape I made contradicting the fabrication.

http://yahoogroups.com/group/brantford/message/1729 is my
complaint to the Ontario Press Council.

http://yahoogroups.com/group/brantford/message/1860 is the
Council's decision after you submitted no defence to the
tape. The council refused to adjudicate the matter. So you
somehow are under the impression that because the council
would not censure you for the fabrication, that made it all
true.

JCT: And then it finished by publishing:

Even if people still believe that 2006 fabrication as you
obviously do, I still don't think it was good enough of a
reason for doing away with the democratic process in
Brantford politics. And of course, barring me from the
process because of my ideas is an even worse reason than my
mis-reported bad behavior.
John C. Turmel, Brantford

Editor's note: The Expositor stands by the accuracy of
Michael-Allan Marion's reporting about John Turmel.

JCT: Har har har har. The Expositor didn't stand by his
accuracy before the Ontario Press Council. The Expositor
offered no rebuttal to my charges. All they can do is deny
it. So:

Letter to the Brantford Expositor
opinion@...
Re: Standing by Turmel's Turmoil Editorial

Dear Sir:

After my Oct 5 2007 letter complaining about your editorial
referring to my objectionable behavior published in a
discredited report fabricated by Michael-Allan Marion as
good reason for barring me from future debates, your
Editor's note said "The Expositor stands by the accuracy of
Michael-Allan Marion's reporting about John Turmel."

This is not true. When I complained to the Ontario Press
Council about his 2006 fabrication and provided a tape of
the event, you offered no defence. You can't call that
standing by your reporter.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/turmel/message/2972 is the
transcript of the tape I made contradicting the fabrication.

When I complained to the Ontario Press Council, you
submitted no defence to the tape. Lucky for you, council
refused to adjudicate the matter. But just because you
weren't censured for the fabrication doesn't make it true.
And now you've repeated it and say you stand by it.

If you really want to stand by Marion's report, I can always
re-file my complaint to the council to give you another
chance to challenge my tape.

John C. Turmel, Brantford

JCT: Let's see if the link to the transcript at a group that
doesn't have closed archives gets through.


--
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 went to Toronto today to file my Application for
judicial review of the CRTC's decision to do nothing to get
me equitable time before election day.

Court File No:________
                        FEDERAL COURT
BETWEEN:
                        John C. Turmel
                                                    Applicant
                             and
                Canadian Radio-Television and
                Telecommunications Commission
                                                   Respondent

                    NOTICE OF APPLICATION
                  (Pursuant to Article 28)
                      (Dated Oct 4 2007)

TO THE RESPONDENT:
      A PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED by the applicant. The
relief claimed by the applicant appears on the following
page.
      THIS APPLICATION will be heard by the Court at a time
and place to be fixed by the Judicial Administrator. Unless
the Court orders otherwise, the place of hearing will be as
requested by the applicant. The applicant requests that this
application be heard at 180 Queen St. W. in  Toronto.
      IF YOU WISH TO OPPOSE THIS APPLICATION, to receive
notice of any step in the application or to be served with
any documents in the application, you or a solicitor acting
for you must prepare a notice of appearance in Form 305
prescribed by the Federal Courts Rules and serve it on the
applicant's solicitor, or where the applicant is self-
represented, on the applicant, WITHIN 10 DAYS after being
served with this notice of application.

Copies of the Federal Courts Rules information concerning
the local offices of the Court and other necessary
information may be obtained on request to the Administrator
of this Court at Ottawa (telephone 613-992-4238) or at any
local office.
      IF YOU FAIL TO OPPOSE THIS APPLICATION, JUDGMENT MAY BE
GIVEN IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU.

Thursday Oct 4 2007

Issued by:_____________________________________
(Registry Officer)
Address of local office: 180 Queen St. W. Toronto, M5V 3L6

TO: Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications
Commission
55 St. Clair St. E. #624, Toronto

                         APPLICATION

This is an application for judicial review in respect of
Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission
letter of Sep 25 2007 acknowledging Applicant's complaint.

The applicant makes application for:

a) an order declaring that the CRTC failed to ensure an
equitable allocation of the free-time partisan political
broadcast by Rogers TV in the 2007 Ontario general election
the riding of Brant.

The grounds for the application are that Section 9 of the
CRTC regulations demands that the allocation of the free-
time partisan political broadcast be made on an equitable
basis, quantitatively and qualitatively, to all rival
candidates.

This application will be supported by the affidavit of John
Turmel dated Oct 4 2007.

Thursday Oct 4 2007
Applicant John C. Turmel


                NOTICE OF MOTION (Oct 4 2007)
             (Application pursuant to Article 28)

Motion to be heard by teleconference

TAKE NOTICE THAT the Applicant will make a motion on short
notice to the Court on Friday Oct 5 2007 at 9:30am as soon
thereafter as the motion can be heard, at 180 Queen St. W.
Toronto.

THE MOTION IS FOR
a) an order of mandamus that the CRTC ensure that the free-
time partisan political broadcast be made equitable before
election day on Oct 10 2007; or

b) an order declaring that the format of the allocation of
the free-time partisan political broadcast is at this point
inequitable, or any other that is just;

c) any Order abridging the time for service, filing, or
hearing of the motion, or amending any defect as to form or
content, or for any Order deemed just.

THE GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION ARE that the allocation of the
free-time in the partisan political broadcast was not made
on an equitable basis to the Applicant according to Section
9 of the CRTC regulations.

THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE used will be the Affidavit of John
Turmel dated Oct 4 2007.

Thursday Oct 4 2007
Applicant John C. Turmel
8-37 Colborne St. E.

TO: Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications
Commission
55 St. Clair St. E. #624, Toronto
---


            AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN TURMEL (Oct 4 2007)
             (Application pursuant to Article 28)

I, John C. Turmel, of the city of Brantford make oath and
say as follow:

1. I was an independent candidate in the 2003 Ontario
general election in Brant riding. Having participated in a
quarter century's worth of debates by that time, I am the
only candidate who uses visual aids such as newspaper
clippings, complementary currencies such as Toronto Dollars,
Guelph Greendollars, Maritimes Hours, computer diskette,
rubber ruler. Like most candidates, I wear my Abolitionist
Party button which is a lapel sticker saying "LETS" for the
Greencurrency Local Employment-Trading Software. I have a
Royal Flush on my tie and wear a white hardhat saying "The
Engineer" to open and close my presentation."

2. Rogers debate moderator Tim Philp didn't like me using
visaul aids when the other candidates had none and so, in
the 2004 federal general election debate, he unilaterally
banned visual aids and party or personal identification. Of
course, other than party buttons, this ban on visual aids
did not affect the presentations of the others, only mine.

3. Exhibit A is the July 21 2004 letter from the CRTC citing
my complaint #193800 about Rogers' interfering with my
presentation in which I wrote:
"I have been participating in partisan political broadcasts
hosted by Rogers Cable from the start but on Jun 16 2003,
Rogers Cable taped  a partisan political debate for future
broadcast by candidates in the the Brant riding in which
certain protocols for partisan political broadcast were
unilaterally changed.
Candidates were informed that no political affiliation would
be permitted to be shown on the debate. I have always been
permitted to wear my party affiliation button before and
protest the change in Rogers' policy.
Partisan political affiliation is present on the Elections
Canada ballot and has always been present on partisan
political broadcasts before. I do not understand Roger
Cable's new policy of banning the display of partisan
political affiliation which used to be permitted.
I make this protest now before the policy spreads. This
decision affects candidate rights nationally and should
never have been unilaterally altered by your local
producers.

4. Exhibit B is the Aug 11 2004 letter from the CRTC
informing Rogers of my complaint but doing nothing more
about it.












5. Exhibit C is the Aug 12 2004 letter to the CRTC noting:
"Have you asked for an explanation for the change in Rogers-
TV policy on party affiliation identification? Or does this
mean that they do not have to explain why they have banned
party affiliation buttons? Please inform me if bringing my
unhappiness with the change in policy to their attention is
all you intend to do so that we may proceed right to the
Federal Court judicial review.

6. Exhibit D is the Oct 28 2004 letter to the CRTC
"I am still awaiting a decision on how you are going to deal
with my protest against your licensee violating my candidate
right to partisan political affiliation in election
debates." The CRTC did not respond.

8. At this 2007 Ontario General Election debate for Brant
riding which will be re-broadcast on Sep 29, Oct 6 & 8, I
displayed my party button and was cut off by moderator Tim
Philp who insisted I put it down. I put it on my lapel and
when he wouldn't let me continue my statement unless I took
it off, I obeyed and removed it. Then Philp ordered the
Brantford police to eject me anyway.

9. Exhibit E is my Sep 24 2007 complaint to the CRTC
demanding they guarantee all candidates equitable time,
quantitatively and qualitatively.

10. Exhibit F is the Sep 25 2007 CRTC letter giving Rogers
three weeks, after the election date, to respond.

11. Exhibit G is the Sep 27 2007 Rogers response refusing me
an equitable share of time. In it, Rogers says I was not
ejected by police for wearing my party button but for
interrupting the next speaker.

12. Since I could not have been interrupting the next
candidate while I was still making my 1-minute opening
statement, Exhibit H is my Oct 1 2007 letter to the CRTC
demanding action to ensure equitable time before the
inequitable program was re-broadcast three more times.

13. Believing that interrupting another candidate is not
sufficent cause for not following the equitable time
requirements of the CRTC, even if it was true, and that the
moderator had no right to interrupt my equitable time due to
the display of a party symbol, this affidavit is made in
support of a motion for an interim a) order of mandamus that
the CRTC ensure that the free-time partican political
broadcast be made equitable; or b) order declaring that the
format of the allocation of the free-time partican political
broadcast is at this point still inequitable.
John C. Turmel, B. Eng.

JCT: All the documents have been posted at my blog
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/turmel


--
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: What an incredible situation. I've often referred to my
complaint to the Ontario Press Council about a pack of lies
made up about me by the Expositor's Michael-Allan Marion at
a meeting during the January 2006 federal general election.
I'd made a tape of the event which I submitted to the Press
Council and when the Expositor couldn't send in an defence
backing up what they'd said, you know what the Ontario Press
Council did to them. Nothing. The Press Council declined to
adjudicate my complaint. The Council is just a sham to make
people think there's some kind of control on crooked press.

Anyway, there was a full-page 5-column article in the
Saturday Sep 29 2007 Expositor about the meeting at Pauline
Johnson from which I had been barred because the principle
didn't like my promoting healthy herb. So if the principal
could shut me out from speaking to the students about
decriminalizing laughing grass, the Expositor may as well
also shut me out from any coverage.

So, of course, there's a big picture of the sitting M.P.P.
Dave Levac, and four smaller pictures of the candidates who
were permitted to attend the debate by the principal. No
picture of the candidate the school fuhrer did not let in.
But buried at the bottom of the story's third column:

>Brantford Expositor, Sep 29 2007
>Levac choice at this debate
>by Cheryl Bauslaugh

JCT: Sure, Levac is their choice from a restricted menu.

CB: Independent candidate John Turmel was not invited to
attend the debate.

JCT: That's it. A corruption of democracy gets no more
comment than that? She didn't ask: "Why was Turmel cheated?"
Didn't ask: "Was that Turmel outside picketing about being
cheated?" She didn't ask: "Is it right for the principal to
cheat Turmel?" No questions. Just democracy as usual in
Brantford. One candidate was not invited to attend so if the
kids at PJ can't find out what he wanted to say, the
Expositor won't tell them either.

So instead of having different high-schools have their own
candidates debates back in 2003, the forces that be put all
the student voters in one place so one crooked educator can
do the one dirty deed, in this case Sandy Hess egged on by
fuhrer-type teacher Geoff Goodall. And then the newspaper
can print nothing about the excluded candidate because he
wasn't there. Real control over the democratic process. Real
perverted control of the democratic process.

As well as that, David Judd decided to explain that it was
Turmel's Turmoil that warrants having his ideas barred from
exposure at candidates debates:

>Turmel's turmoil
>Brantford Expositor, Sep 29 2007
>Editorial

DJ: John Turmel might better be named John Turmoil. Trouble
often attends the independent candidate on the election
trail. He was kicked out in the first 10 minutes of an all-
candidates debate on cable television last week. Since then,
he has not been invited to at least four other debates.

JCT: And that's all quite democratic.

DJ: Not being invited hasn't stopped Turmel. On Thursday, he
showed up at North Park Collegiate for a debate hosted by
Brant Women in Action and the University Women's Club. He
walked around the room complaining in a loud voice and
insisted on taking a place at the debating table until two
police officers arrived to escort him from the building.

JCT: Don't forget to include the elite in Brantford's
Chamber of Commerce who have also failed their test on
democratic ethics.

DJ: Turmel likes nothing better than to campaign for his
beliefs - legalizing marijuana and promoting a barter system
to replace Canada's financial system are two key planks in
his platform - and to tweak the noses of those in authority.

JCT: I only tweak the noses of those who abuse their
authority.

DJ: He has claimed the world record for losing the most
elections for public office. The current election is his
66th attempt.

JCT: Guinness has me listed under "most elections contested,
66 right now, and I point out that "most elections lost" is
only at 65 right now. But of course, Judd would focus on the
one not in the book the record for losing and not the record
for perseverance.

DJ: Although Turmel's advocacy for marijuana kept him out of
an all-candidates' meeting for students at Pauline Johnson
Collegiate this week, his ideas aren't his big problem. It's
his behaviour.

JCT: My advocacy of an idea kept me out of the debate but
that's all okay because of my past behavior.

JD: He picks and chooses which rules to obey at debates and
which ones to ignore.

JCT: No, I always obey all the rules that are fair and
logical and do not hamper my presentation and do not choose
to obey, but to challenge and defy the bad rules even if
some opponents toady up to the fuhrer moderators to make
sure they get their share.

Remember, like I told Dave Levac: this corruption of our
race couldn't happen you refused to participate in any
debate without all your opponents. It's Dave's willingness
to accept an unfair share of the broadcast that permits the
fuhrer types to corrupt the process. The fuhrer types
couldn't push me around if Levac stood up for me. He by
himself had the clout to have made it fair. He alone is
responsible for the perversion of his win over me. Like I
shouted at him after the cops had taken me away: do you
think you heat me fair and square? Of course he didn't and
of course he could have.

Maybe, instead of submitting my name as the candidate "most
removed by police from debates in a so-called democracy,"
I'll submit Dave Levac's name winning candidate most helped
by having candidates removed by police from his debates.

DJ: Groups that organize meetings have the right not to
invite Turmel.

JCT: If private groups want to host private meetings in
order to influence the outcome of the election, I have no
recourse against private political partying for or against
anyone, But if they open the meeting to the public hoping to
influence the public, then I have the right to come and try
to change the rules to avoid being cheated and when the
cheating will not end, to decry that cheating to their
faces with maximum civil disobedience. If democracy is worth
it, then my standing up for it is worth it.

DJ: And why would they invite him after the way he behaved
at an all-candidates' meeting for the federal election in
Brant in January 2006?


JCT: This is the meeting where the Christian Heritage
candidate said I had misrepresented my bible quotations and
I told him to put his money where his mouth was. That was
called illegitimate "goading." When the old biddy moderator
told everyone she agreed I had misrepresented the Bible, I
told her she could put her money where her mouth was too.



Here's how an Expositor editorial
described Turmel's disrespect for the other candidates and
the audience:

Turmel had no business goading Christian Heritage
Party candidate John Wubs and shouting at the
moderator, other candidates and the audience to
the point that police were called.
Turmel repeatedly quoted passages from the
"Internet Bible" clearly intended to offend Wubs.
The Christian Heritage candidate finally spoke up,
saying he was offended. NDP candidate Lynn
Bowering and Liberal candidate Lloyd St. Amand
said they were offended, too.
Turmel shouted that he is educated and that others
at the debate were not. He called one member of
the audience an "ignoramus" and told another
person "you're not very bright."
As for the audience in general, Turmel said, "You
cannot possibly follow what I've said. You're not
intelligent enough."
Conservative candidate Phil McColeman called the
police. Two officers quickly arrived by which time
Turmel had calmed down.
But the damage had been done. About one-third of
the audience of 75 people had left. Children and
young people, who had come to see democracy in
action, were treated to an embarrassing incident.
An all-candidates meeting should be an exchange of
ideas. Instead, audience members were asking: "Why
should we have to listen to this stuff?"

No wonder Turmel is unwelcome at meetings during the current
election. Once bitten, twice shy.
He is free to campaign door to door, to promote his ideas on
the Internet, to buy ads or do other things that candidates
do. He cannot crash meetings to which he was not invited.
Turmel can complain all he wants. All-candidates' meetings
need not put up with his shenanigans. Article ID# 714012

JCT: This was the exactly the incident that I complained to
the Ontario Press Council about! I have the tape proving
that that very report is a pack of lies. Har har har har
har. He's using an already disproven lie by his own reporter
as his only reason for people banning me now. Har har har
har. What a strategic error!

And it's obvious I was the goader, not the goadees, and it
was the goadees who had gotten all flustered sending off
Phearful Phil McColeman to call the police. And it wasn't
the goader who had calmed down by the time the police
arrived but the goadees.

So the dolts are back on the hook because they forgot that
when the OPC let them get away with printing their first
pack of lies it, it still didn't make it true. Har har har
har. I can use the same tape to rebut this second printing
of the same pack of lies.

Har har har har. I should post the tape on the internet even
though it's only audio. And then read Judd's editorial aloud
citing his own reporter's fabrications in order to cite my
behavior. Har har har. He forgot Marion fabricated it, that
they beat the OPC charge once, and have used the same report
I can prove a fabrication by using the same tape again! Har
har har har, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk. It's a battle of
wits with an unarmed man:

>Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 21:35:53 -0400 (EDT)
>From: turmel@... (John Turmel)
>Subject: Turmel Turmoil editorial same old fabrication
>To: opinion@...

Letter to the Brantford Expositor
opinion@...

Re: Editorial: Turmel Turmoil

Dear Sir:

In your Sep 29 2007, you could not condone the Pauline
Johnson principal for barring her adult student voters from
the ideas of one of the candidate but you argued that
Michael-Allan Marion's report on my behavior at a 2006
federal election candidates debate made her not being
democratic all okay. Even if Marion's report had been true,
barring me for caustic remarks is still not very persuasive
reason to dispense with democratically letting voters hear
all their available choices.

Just as I have had to complain about Marion fabricating the
story about Tim Philp ordering Brantford Police to eject me
from this 2007 Rogers debate for making continued caustic
comments, which I had not, I had to complain about him
fabricating these caustic comments I had not made at a
debate which I had taped back in the 2006 election.

http://yahoogroups.com/group/branford/message/1644 is the
transcript of the tape I made contradicting the fabrication.

http://yahoogroups.com/group/brantord/message/1729 is my
complaint to the Ontario Press Council.

http://yahoogroups.com/group/brantord/message/1860 is the
Council's decision after you submitted no defence to the
tape. The council refused to adjudicate the matter. So you
somehow are under the impression that because the council
would not censure you for the fabrication, that made it all
true.

Even if people still believe that 2006 fabrication as you
obviously do, I still don't think it was good enough of a
reason for doing away with the democratic process in
Brantford politics. And of course, barring me from the
process because of my ideas is an even worse reason than my
mis-reported bad behavior.

John C. Turmel, Brantford

JCT: If the man wants to spend a foot-long editorial
criticizing me, let's see how much of my comeback he lets
the readers hear?

Of course, his legitimate course of action would be to
suggest to Elections Ontario some more rigorous standards
for being a candidate for election. If he wants to stop me
from participating, he should get get me off the ballot.

This is probably the most undemocratic election I've even
been in and Dave Levac could have prevented it all at any
point simply by saying he would not accept any unfair
advantage over any other candidate. No organizer would have
dared hold a debate without the sitting M.P.P. so Dave
always had it in his power to make it a fair game and Dave
consistently refused to get help prevent the cheating of his
opponent.


--
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 got this response from Rogers' station manager Jeremy
Clark to my complaint to the CRTC about Tim "Fuhrer" Philp
not giving me equitable time in the Brant provincial
election debate:

>Subject: Response to CRTC Case: 361276
>Date:Thu, 27 Sep 2007 18:16:27 -0400
>From:"Jeremy Clark" <Jeremy.Clark@...>
>To:johnturmel@...

Mr. Turmel,
Please find attached Rogers Television's response to your
complaint to the CRTC, case 361276.
<<Response to John Turmel_Case ID 361726.pdf>> Jer.
Jeremy Clark Station Manager
Rogers Television  Tel:519-759-7711 x8120  Fax:519-893-5861

Response_to_John_Turmel_Case_ID_361726.pdf

Rogers television 20
85 Grand Crest Place
Kitchener Ontario N3G 4A8
Tel: 1-888-894-1172
Fax: 1-888-329-0329

September 27 2007

Mr. John Turmel
johnturmel@...

JC: Dear Mr. Turmel,

Re: Complaint to CRTC (Case ID 361276)

The CRTC has asked Rogers to reply to your email of
September 25th. In your email, you stated that you were not
granted equitable time in a televised debate on Rogers
Television for the Brant riding in the Ontario general
election. We strongly disagree with your statement.

JCT: I bet they not saying I got equitable time but rather
they're saying I got justified inequitable time.

JC: You were invited to participate in the debate. Along
with the other candidates, we provided you in advance with
the debate rules and format for the September 18th taping
(See Appendix A). You accepted our invitation to attend and
at no time prior to the debate did you contact Rogers to
discuss any concerns with the rules and debate format.

JCT: Mr. Clark must have forgotten back in 200? when Philp
first changed the rules barring my visual aids how and I
complained to the CRTC about it and never got an answer. But
I did complain about it and Clark should have remembered.

JC: Our policy has always been to invite all the candidates
to our debates and to ensure our format is balanced.

JCT: Handicapping the presentations of some candidates by
barring visual aids may be balanced
by barring visual aids from the presentations of those who
were not going to use them but it's fair.

JC: During the pre-debate briefing with yourself and the
other candidates, you attempted to take issue with the
debate format.

JCT: Yes I did. Fuhrer Philp wanted to change things that
Fuhrer Philp wanted to change but discussion of what the
candidates wanted to change was out of the question, said
Fuhrer Philp. He was fully aware that no one agreed with his
"no visual aids" rule yet persisted in domineering the
event.

JC: During the actual debate, you used the allocated time in
your opening statement to take issue with the moderator and
debate format.

JCT: I used a few seconds of my allocated 60 seconds. Oh, he
must mean I used the time allocated by Philp.

JC: In addition, you took issue on camera about the removing
of a badge you were wearing which as you are aware violates
one of the rules regarding the display of any candidate's
promotion material on the actual production set.

JCT: Yes, who do you think you are to hamper my political
presentation by banning my visual aids from your set?

JC: When the moderator moved on to the next candidate for
his opening remarks,

JCT: No, when the moderator interrupted my time to try to
move on to the next speaker. Notice how he set up this
pretext by presuming earlier that I had used up my time. It
lets him skip Philp's role in the timeline. As far as
Clark's telling it, I was finished my presentation when I
interrupted the next guy. He skips Philp's role.

JC: you interrupted your fellow candidate at which point our
moderator had you removed from the set.

JCT: So it's official, a candidate does not get equitable
time if he interrupts another candidate? I doubt that's a
good enough excuse especially since I was still on my minute
when the moderator urged my opponent to start speaking. And
I beat him to it. He didn't start speaking. And he's got the
video to prove it! How stupid can you get to misrepresent
the video we're all watching?

JC: The CRTC policy on election broadcasts stipulates that
public affairs programming on an election campaign must be
done on an equitable basis for all candidates. Equitable
time does not necessarily mean equal time, although
generally, all candidates are entitled to some coverage that
will give them an opportunity to share their views with the
audience.

JCT: And the fuhrer types in the media get to decide which
candidates get less coverage than others! So they think.

JC: In fact, our own guidelines ensure we provide a balanced
debate.

JCT: My opponents getting 24 minutes and me getting 15
seconds, shown four times, isn't balanced. But we're told we
lose our share of time because it's against Fuhrer Philp's
rules to wear our badges thus inconveniencing only those who
want to! We could be told we lose our share of time because
it's against Fuhrer Philp's rules to wear our glasses thus
inconveniencing only those who wear glasses. We lose our
time because we must obey rules made up by our Nazi
moderator.

JC: Rogers provided you with an equitable opportunity to
participate in this debate

JCT: Luckily, it says they're supposed to provide equitable
time, not equitable opportunity. What if fuhrer Philp
decided we'd have to swim across the Grand river in order to
participate, that's an equitable opportunity too. Equitable
opportunity is not what the law says Rogers had to do, it
says equitable free-time political broadcast.

JC: and we acted in a professional manner

JCT: Acting as a dictatorial referee before disagreement by
all the participants isn't acting in a professional manner.
Swallowing his pride and agreeing with the consensus of the
participants would have been professional. Philp's
performance was a juvenile tantrum of a bully who doesn't
get what he wants.

JC: to ensure our coverage of the debate was balanced

JCT: I'm not saying that making candidates jump through
Philp's hoops is not balanced, sure it is, we have to all
jump. I'm saying making candidates obey Philp's
unconscionable restrictions on the presentations of our
political programs is unethical interference.

JC: and not disruptive to our viewers.

JCT: Wearing our party buttons was somehow disruptive to
their viewers? Har har har. Oh right, I wasn't ejected
because of my party button, it was because I interrupted the
guy who was supposed to be speaking during my minute.

JC: Yours truly,
Jeremy Clark
Station Manager,
Rogers Television
Cc: CRTC Client Service (replies@...)

JCT: We'll see. I sent another message to the CRTC

Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 18:36:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Turmel <johnturmel@...>
Subject: Re: Response to CRTC Case: 361276
To: Jeremy Clark <Jeremy.Clark@...>
Cc: replies@...

Email: replies@...
Monday Oct 1 2007

I have received the response of Rogers Television to my
complaint to the Commission about inequitable time I was
given during a Brant riding election debate and my demand
for equitable treatment before election day Oct 10 2007.
Rogers responded that my getting one minute while my
opponents all average 96 minutes is equitable because I had
interrupted another speaker during my first 1-minute to
speak.
To accuse me of interruption during my opening statement is
so stupid an excuse that I request a immediate decision on
whether you will make Rogers TV give me an equitable share
of time before election day because I may want to have any
Commission decision refusing to compel equitable treatment
reviewed by the Federal Court before the next airing of the
taped debate set for Oct 6 2007.

Yours truly,
John Turmel

Cc: Jeremy.Clark@...


--
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: It was the last debate of the week held by the
Brantford Rotary Club. I was sitting in the ante-room when a
grey-haired gent came up to ask about me and my brother Ray.
I asked where he knew Ray and I from? He said Ottawa. I
asked him his name. "Ian Deans."

Right, Ian Deans was an NDP member of Parliament back in the
early 1980s when Ray and I used to picket the Bank of Canada
when they posted the new mort-gage death (interest) rate
every Thursday. Then we'd walk up to Parliament Hill to
picket the opening of the House of Commons Question Period.
So we got to meet most of the M.P.s as they went by us into
the House. For 5 years. He used to chubby but now he was
lean.

Before it started, I saw Tim Philp come in. He must have
been surprised to see me there since I had been barred from
every other debate since he started the bad habit by having
the Brantford police eject me from his Rogers televised
free-time partisan political broadcast for doing my
presentation my way. He wanted me to do my presentation his
way. There were no cops on hand to bar me from here.

He came over to shake my hand and say there were no hard
feelings. Sure, I said, this is a question of authority,
whether you have the right to ban our party ID or not. He
said that wasn't the reason he banned me. It was because I
had interrupted the next speaker he was trying to get to
start talking after he had cut me off. I said: I was thrown
out for interrupting the next guy while it was still my
minute? For interrupting your improper interruption of me?
Right, that's the alibi they're going to use for not obeying
the CRTC that guarantees candidates equitable time.
Interrupting another candidate was grounds for denial of
time! It had nothing to do with party buttons!!!

But of course, we know that his interruption was based on
the button, and if his interruption was not proper, then it
was still my time and I wasn't interrupting the next guy to
use it but intercepting it since it was still mine. He's
trying to avoid his clear foul and blame my ejection from
the game on my reaction to it. I said we'd let a Federal
Court judge decide that next week in Toronto.

After the buffet luncheon, the candidates were given 5
minutes to speak, there were two questions and then a 1
minute closing. Having been at past Rotary Club debates, I
noticed the habit of the speaker introducing all the unknown
guests of members. When he introduced Tim Philp, he joked he
was better known as the "Nazi Moderator." Har har har har. I
almost sputtered out loud. Fuhrer Philp's backroom bullying
is becoming known! After all, he could have changed the
objected to rule when none of the candidates agreed with him
it would be unfair for us to have them on. He wanted to
change other rules, why only that one. He could have changed
the one no one liked but he-with-the-fuhrer-complex had to
have it his way and once in, had to enforce his dicta
strictly. After all, they were the rules the candidates
agreed to and he was going to enforce them no matter how
many candidates did not want to agree to them.

But now he's trying a new pretext. I was ejected for an
interruption. One interruption and you're out. Strict. Can't
wait to see if they're' going to tell that to a judge.

In my opening speech, I acknowledged Mr. Deans from our
encounters a quarter century ago. I pointed out a flyer I
have

Toronto Star, Aug 16 1994
North York Hydro hopes to spark gifts, donations
by David Isrealson,
"Say it with kilowatts:
About Carl Anderson who printed up Gift Certificates to pay
for power he gave to the Salvation Army. I wrote at the
bottom of my hand-out, "The only thing they didn't think of
was paying their employees with Hydro Dollars.:

I pointed out how the whole Ontario Hydro Debt could be paid
off in Ontario Hydro Dollars and is there anyone who doubts
that Ontario Hydro can produce a hundred billion dollars
worth of power over the next 20 years?

And if we can pay our provincial taxes with Ontario Power
Dollars, then the Government can spend them to pay their
employees too until they are recuperated in taxes. Best of
all, say you're an industrialist, you have a 2 million
dollars business, a 1 million mortgage and you are cash
poor. Like a casino bank, pledge your equity at the Ontario
Hydro Bank to get a million Power Dollar interest-free loan.
Better yet, pledge your whole business to get a two million
Power Dollar interest-free loan and pay off your interest-
bearing mortgage. (I can imagine every banker in the room
shitting his pants at the thought of all businesses paying
off their loanshark creditors.)

But best of all, it would allow us to decommission our
nuclear reactors. I held the book "Deadly Deceit: Low-level
radiation, high level cover-up" by Jay M. Gould and Benjamin
A Goldman ISBN 0-941423-56-5 which includes statistics of
"extra deaths" due to living near nuclear reactors, due to
nuclear accidents. Remember them telling you there was
nothing to fear when the Chernobyl cloud passed overhead in
1986.

(Don't worry about particles getting onto the grass, getting
into the cows, getting into the babies where it does far
more damage then adults.)

Well, they thought that extra deaths was a linear function
of radiation and because it was only a small percentage of
an x-ray, there was nothing to worry about. But these low-
tech incompetents didn't know that the damage wasn't a
linear curve, it was a logarithmic curve so most of the
damage is done at low-level

(There's not much difference between 100 or 1000 x-rays. One
radioactive particle sitting in your bone marrow affects a
piece of code in your DNA and your body then amplifies that
flaw.)

Why do you think so many people are dying of all these
cancers, leukemias? Low-level radiation. Do they do
something about it? No, they cover it up. They've poisoned
us and these other parties don't have the money to fix it.

Using Ontario Hydro Dollars, we could finance the
decommissioning of our nuclear reactors and fund clean
energy. Vote for these other guys and you're all dead
sooner. Thank you very much.

The second question was from a minister who asked what to do
about one of his parishioners who was ill and homeless. Of
course, all the others were concerned and honestly all
thought something should be done. And they really meant it.
It's not right that very sick people are homeless and I sure
believed that they all thought something should be done
about it.

Me too. Only I explained how the loan to help the
businessman from the Ontario Hydro Bank would also help the
sick person, or student, too. I pointed out Student loans
were a first taste of sociable credit. Imagine that everyone
could get those same loans of valuable currency from the
Ontario Power Bank. Just like poker chips backed up by
Government services

(including Education, Health and Administration.)

In the meantime, the minister could start his own parish
time bank. Perhaps there's someone out there with a spare
room who would put her up in exchange for having the lawn
mowed, the roof repaired, etc.

As it was ending the moderator mentioned that the candidates
must be looking forward to election day and getting tired of
all these election debates. I quipped: It's my first debate,
I'm still fresh."

That brought the house down since that very morning's paper
had the Expositor stories about my CRTC complaint with the
"Nazi moderator" in the room who started the perversion of
democracy that's catching on everywhere else. If Fuhrer
Philp's doing it, everyone can. We'll see in Toronto next
week.


--
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

>Candidate complains to CRTC; Independent Turmel says he was
unfairly ejected from TV debate
>Brantford Expositor, Sep 28 2007
>By John Paul Zronik
>http://www.theexpositor.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=711895&auth=John+Paul+Zronik

Picture caption: A city police officer asks independent
candidate John Turmel to leave the candidates' table prior
to the start of an election debate Wednesday night at the
Brantford Golf and Country Club. Turmel was not invited to
take part in the debate. He also was excluded from a debate
Thursday night.

JPZ: Brant provincial election candidate John Turmel has
filed a complaint with the CRTC over being kicked out of a
televised debate. Turmel, running as an independent in the
Oct. 10 vote, was ejected from a Rogers Television debate on
Sept. 18 and escorted from the city hall council chamber by
police. Moderator Tim Philp ordered Turmel removed for
breaking a debate rule that said no props, buttons or other
promotional materials were allowed.

JCT: Debate rules he could have changed and to which he knew
not one candidate agreed with.

JPZ: Turmel was ejected within the first 10 minutes of the
two-hour debate. He started his opening statement by
objecting to the rules. He then proceeded to break them by
pulling a sticker from his jacket that promoted a system of
"social currency" that's part of his election campaign.
"It's part of my political presentation," Turmel said during
an interview this week. "Why shouldn't I wear it is the
question. It's a ridiculous issue. Fighting for a sticker is
not what I want to be remembered for."

The candidate said he's asked the CRTC, which regulates
broadcasting standards, to order that Rogers give him a fair
share of broadcast time, which he estimates at 30 minutes,
on its city television station. He said Philp had no good
reason to order him removed from the debate.

JCT: I use all sorts of props even if others do not. Why
should I have to change my presentation because Philp
decides he wants to change things.

JPZ: Philp said in an interview that he made the right
choice in removing Turmel. The moderator said debate rules
were explained to Turmel in advance and that the candidate
was given "several" warnings that he would be removed if he
broke the rules. "Unfortunately, John didn't want to obey
the rules," Philp said. "As moderator, I had a duty to
conduct this debate fairly, not just for John, but for the
other candidates, too. "In one way, I was sad I had to turf
him. He adds colour and he's an interesting man."

JCT: All he had to do was concede that none of the
candidates wanted that buttons be banned as unfair. Notice
Philp doesn't repeat the silly pretext that because we were
identified by Rogers on the screen, party ID buttons would
be somehow unfair.

The article continues but not in the online version:

>Philp, Rogers defend ban on Turmel
>Expositor, Sep 28 2007 Page A3

continued from FRONT

JPZ: Philp, who also writes regularly for the Expositor,
said that Turmel broke the debate's rules by showing and
wearing a sticker, as well as interrupting NDP candidate
Brian Van Tilborg.

JCT: When Philp told me today at the Rotary Club meeting
that that was his reason, I said that we were still on my
time when he interrupted me to move on to Brian. So I was
interrupting his interruption. But that's his new pretext, I
interrupted his interrupting me.

JPZ: Turmel waved his sticker in front of the camera before
placing it on his jacket, but agreed to take it off moments
before Philp asked police to escort him from the room.

CRTC regulations don't require that all candidates in an
election race participate in televised debates. But, if a
candidate isn't invited to participate, he or she must be
given "equitable" broadcast time during the course of the
election.

"It should be noted that "equitable" time does not
necessarily mean "equal" but generally all candidates and
parties are entitled to some coverage that will give them
the opportunity to expose their ideas to the public," the
regulations say.

The CRTC regulations also note that "the broadcaster does
not enjoy the position of a benevolent censor who is able to
give the public only what it "should" know."

Taanta Gupta, vice-president of communications with Rogers,
said the broadcaster has received Turmel's complaint and has
been given "a number of weeks" to respond. She said Turmel
was invited to participate in the debate, became disruptive
and was asked to leave.

WE ACTED APPROPRIATELY

"We feel very strongly that we acted appropriately," Gupta
said. Because Rogers isn't obligated to respond to his
complaint until after the election, Turmel said he will
appear before a Federal Court judge with the next week and
ask the debate not be broadcast.

"It's inequitable, it's undemocratic and I'm going to ask a
judge to ban it," he said.

Rebroadcasts are scheduled for Saturday at 8p.m. as well as
on Oct 6 and Oct 8.

Turmel said he also objected to Philp being able to extend
time for candidates' answers and ask questions during the
debate.

"It's not the moderator's place to talk with one particular
candidate, no matter what interests him," Turmel said. "I
was offended that he thinks he has the right to put his
opinion into our debate."

Philp said he's never had a complaint

JCT: He must have forgotten my complaint to the CRTC about
his impairing my presentation with his new rules banning
party ID. Keep in mind, pre-Philp, we'd never had to take
off our party buttons. Who was he to change things.

JPZ: about the fairness in more than 50 hours of TV debates
that he has worked.

JCT: Of course, it wasn't a complaint that "no buttons is
unfair," it was a complaint that starting to ban buttons is
uncalled for.

JPZ: "It's important to me that I do a good job with it,"
Philp said. "It's important that the moderator be strict
about the rules."

JCT: I never mind being strict in enforcing rules, I object
to being strict in setting them despite no support by any of
the candidates on the issue.

JPZ: Turmel, running in his 66th election campaign, holds
the Guinness World Record for most elections contested. He's
never won but uses his candidacy to promote a social
currency system, as well as a pro-marijuana message. He
holds an engineering degree from Ottawa's Carleton
University and makes his living as a professional poker
player. "I might have 300 election debates under my belt,"
Turmel said. "I don't go there to cause problems."

The sticker Turmel waved during the Rogers debate promoted
computer software called LETS, or Local Employment-Trading
System software, which is used in concert with a system of
social currency promoted by the candidate. The system would
allow citizens to access interest free loans and trade goods
and services for a specific number of hours worked. The
system is currently in use in 58 countries, Turmel said.

NOT INVITED

Following the televised debate, Turmel was not invited to
participate in a local candidates debate hosted by students
at Pauline Johnson Collegiate,

JCT: Hosted by students but controlled by the principal.

JPZ: John Noble Home, one organized by the Chamber of
Commerce, and on one women's issues, all of which took place
this week.

JCT: John Noble wasn't an exclusion by police forces, it was
an omission to inform me and an error to find out on my
part. I'm told they had a big sign out front announcing the
debate and I walked right by it on my way to perform an
accordion concert there that very afternoon and missed it.
The Chamber of Commerce and the Brantford University Women
used police to throw me out. The John Noble Nurses
Association had a chair for me.

JPZ: Prior to Tuesday's debate at Pauline Johnson, Turmel
was sent a letter saying he would be charged with
trespassing if he came on school property. During an
interview, principal Sandy Hess said Turmel turned up
uninvited at a mayoral election debate at the school last
October.

JCT: Imagine, she's still under the impression that I hadn't
been invited to last year's mayoral debate!! A pretty
uninformed person to be doing the deciding for all those
adult student voters.

JPZ: "He made inappropriate comments that we would not
accept in a high school setting," she said.

JCT: So much for free speech. Adults voters having their
choices controlled because she's in charge of their setting?
After all, these are all adult student voters she's treating
like kids who need to be protected from dangerous ideas.

JPZ: Hess said the comments related to the use of marijuana,
which is prohibited in PJ's school code of behavior. Turmel
said talking about pot is a "completely illegitimate" reason
for banning him from any debate. "Who are they to say I
can't talk about marijuana?"

JCT: There's a marijuana party that promotes legal marijuana
but an independent candidate can't bring it up. Policing is
funded by the province and my attempt to cut funds for such
policing is certainly a legitimate issue, an issue that's
been suppressed by an undemocratic principal. And she not
only censored for her students but for all the adult student
voters in the city who were bused in to the censored show.

JPZ: During this week's PJ debate, Turmel talked with
students on the sidewalk near the school and handed out
campaign literature. At least two city police officers were
at the school during the event. Hess said police were not
called specifically to deal with Turmel, but were there as
they would be for any school function, such as a school
dance or football game.

JCT: Complete bull. There were no cops at last year's
mayoral debate. They were called then at the end of the
meeting to prevent me from passing out my pro-marijuana
flyers. Why would police be needed for a students assembly
with teachers watching over their classes just because there
are political candidates on the stage? Why would having
candidates on stage mandate police protection but not
ordinary student events? So bull, that's just another false
pretext to cover their lack of real reason for their crooked
debate. I'd bet it was teacher Geoff Goodall who was so
upset by my appearance at Fuhrer Philp's debate that year
who talked her into barring me and now putting her foot in
her mouth.

JPZ: NOT NEW TO CONTROVERSY

All the controversy is nothing new to Turmel, who's been
kicked out of election debates at least six times by his
count. Still, he believes it's his democratic right to
participate in remaining local candidates debates. "If you
don't want me in the debate, take me off the ballot," he
said. "This is not democracy."

JCT: And I've always made them use police to take me away.
If they want to cheat me, I'm not going to take it quietly.
Ever.

JPZ: Philp said he isn't surprised Turmel is crying foul.
"Mr. Turmel is essentially a professional activist," Philp
said. "He's a brilliant man, but, unfortunately, he wants
his rights respected but doesn't respect anyone else's."

JCT: I wanted to keep speaking after he had interrupted me
to let the next guy speak, so in his mind, I was
interrupting the next guy he had interrupted me to call on.
---

>Candidates debate Turmel's place; Some rivals say he has
a right to speak, while another says he's a distraction
>Brantford Expositor, Sep 28 2007, Page A3
>by Expositor staff
http://www.theexpositor.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=712723

John Turmel's political opponents share differing opinions
about his right to participate in local election debates.

Police removed Turmel, an independent candidate in the Oct.
10 provincial vote, from a Rogers Television debate on Sept.
18, after moderator Tim Philp said the candidate broke
debate rules. Turmel hasn't been invited to four additional
candidates debates since that time.

Progressive Conservative candidate Dan McCreary said Turmel
did not deserve to be thrown out of the Rogers debate. Mr.
Turmel, despite his personal point of view, is a candidate
in this election, McCreary said. He's got every right to
participate. McCreary said there are rules governing how a
televised media debate is run and that he would be very
surprised if Mr. Philp didn't cross the line that night.
Turmel's sudden removal from the debate caught candidates by
surprise, McCreary said. We were all stunned that it
happened. But McCreary noted that candidates meetings run by
private groups, such as the Chamber of Commerce, should not
have to include Turmel.

IT'S UNDEMOCRATIC'

Family Coalition Party candidate Rob Ferguson said Turmel
should be included in debates. Ferguson said he wished the
big three parties the Liberals, Progressive Conservatives
and New Democrats would be more supportive of Turmel's right
to speak. It's undemocratic, Ferguson said. We don't agree
with each other anyway, so why should he be excluded on the
basis of opinion? It bugs me to see the small guys excluded.

Liberal Dave Levac said Turmel has interesting ideas about
monetary issues that deserve airing. But he said candidates
should follow established rules during debates. All of us
are obliged to abide by the rules that are established,
Levac said. I'd like to hear John express his opinions, but
there are rules. After hearing John in the past, I've
personally told him he has interesting ideas that deserve
attention.

Green Party candidate Ted Shelegy said he believes Turmel
serves as a distraction during local debates. People
involved in a debate should be a legitimate candidate,
Shelegy said. Otherwise, it takes up time and detracts from
the issues of the day.

JCT: How sad. I was at the Green founding convention in
Ottawa in 1984, I was the only Ontario member ever ejected
from the party for promoting LETS without the party Fuhrer's
permission, and Ted thinks I serve as a distraction? Of
course, he actually hasn't had a chance to hear me, has he?
He's only had the chance to see me in the "distracting"
situations of being thrown out for wanting to participate.

JPZ: New Democratic Party candidate Brian Van Tilborg
offered no comment on the issue.

JCT: Brian looks so ill-at-ease at every time show-down.
Must be tough staying on the fence over such a moral
dilemma.

- Compiled with files from Cheryl Bauslaugh, Susan Gamble
and John Paul Zronik, Expositor Staff Article ID# 712723

JCT: Susan Gamble was the reporter who wrote that beautiful
article during my first election campaign at:
http:yahoogroups.com/group/turmel/message/1949


--
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: This is turning into even more of a Guinness record for
the number of times the police have been called to prevent
participation in election debate against Dave Levac. Lucky
Dave gets to watch cops take away his opponent four times.
Tough not to win with the law on your side.

Last night's meeting was held by the University ladies at
North Park Collegiate. When I got there, I ran into Dave
Levac in the parking lot. He told me to lay off since he had
spoken up against the exclusion of candidates. I told him
that as the sitting M.P.P., all he had ever had to do was
threaten not to participate and they'd back down. I've seen
it happen before. He admitted I had a point.

Tory Dan McCreary and Green Ted Shelegy were at the door of
the auditorium so I mentioned I hoped there wouldn't be any
trouble tonight. When I got inside the auditorium, I noticed
that there were only 5 seats on the stage and quipped:
"looks like there's going to be trouble." The lady moderator
told me in front of Dave Levac and Brian Von Tilborg that I
had not been invited to participate and could sit in the
audience. When I challenged her why I couldn't participate,
she said it was because I was an independent and did not
have a party. That was the pretext the Brant University
Ladies had settled on the cheat me out of equal time.

I immediately started belly-aching about being excluded.
Every insulting barb I could think of. "Barring a candidate
because he's independent, where'd you go to school, Russia?"
You women should be ashamed of yourselves.

The lady moderator threatened to call the police if I didn't
sit down. I told her to go make her call, I wasn't going to
let her cheat me without using the full force of the law. I
engaged a few people in the audience as I bemoaned the
corruption of the democratic process by these university-
educated women. I said "give me some farmers any day." Then
I had to add: "the farmers haven't invited me to their
debate either so that's not true, seems you're all crooked."
"What a bad example you are for your children."

I urged Dave and Brian to speak up and insist on all the
candidates. Don't let her cheat me. What would she know
about sportsmanship. Come on, have some integrity and don't
let her do this.

I mentioned that I'd probably have to submit this to the
Guinness Book of Records for the candidate most times
prevented from participation in political debates by the
full force of the law.

Police to remove me from a debate four times. Wow. I don't
remember any corruption of election where they called the
police twice, let alone four times. It's certainly a record
for me. In a democratic country, of course. Anyone in a
dictatorship can say they were kept from participating in
the electoral process "all the time." I've only rarely been
denied democracy in a democracy, but four times, that's a
record.

Then I went outside and ran into Ted and Dan and urged them
to do something. Dan said he'd spoken up before but that
"it's their debate" and he had to obey." I said he didn't
have to let them cheat me. I thanked him but said it was
only words, now was the time for some leadership.

Back inside the hall, I continued heckling the cheats,
bemoaning how their board was making all of Brantford's
University women look bad.

Then I started urging the candidates to have some balls, to
stand up to the uppity women. I kept reminding Dave how
Liberal Lowell Green had stood up for me, how Tory Graham
Bird had too. Should of reminded Dave of the time in 1980
when I was protesting outside the venue of a debate from
which I had been excluded and Liberal Sheila Copps made the
moderator invite me in! Sheila was a Liberal with balls.

Michael-Allan Marion came in and I started heckling him
about being caught in his fabrication that tried to cover
for Philp having no excuse for barring me by making up a
story that I'd continued making caustic remarks. I urged
everyone to tune in at 8pm on Sep 29, Oct 6 and 8 to watch
Marion's fabrication being exposed. It's not as if I'm going
to get fair treatment out of him, right?

So I kept needling my opponents to show some balls, maybe it
was too bad there weren't any women candidates with the
balls to stand up to these crooked women. Come on, if you
all threaten to walk, they'll give in. Come on Dave, show
some leadership. You're the M.P.P. They'll listen."

After awhile, I noticed Dave Levac going into the back room
and coming out with another table. They started setting it
up beside the first table so I quipped: Say I'm on the
debate and I'll shut up right now." Strangely, no one said
anything. I repeated: if I'm getting on, I'll shut up right
now." Still no response. But a place was opened up so we all
sat down, I shut up, and thanked them saying they'd come out
of it heroes. Not too many candidates show such balls.

After a while with nothing happening, I mentioned that the
moderator was probably out in the hall explaining to the
police that they weren't needed any more. I told Brian who
was sitting beside me about another meeting where the
moderator had called the police, then the audience had voted
that I be permitted to stay, and the moderator had to
explain when the police arrived why he had called. What I
didn't tell him was that it was a 1982 meeting where I was
running against his former silk-stockinged leader Bob Rae
who had later explained that Evelyn Gigantes was right to
stay after the Tory Graham Bird and Liberal Lowell Green had
walked off refusing to take advantage of the excluded
candidates. In 1982, Bob had said nothing to help me get on
the debate but the audience had! That's when I told him:
"Dominion's might like gutless chickens but I don't."

So after snickering about what might be the holdup, I
pointed out that the police were now inside the auditorium
speaking to the moderator. Then I noticed them start towards
the stage and said: "Oh no. Come on Dave, speak up.
  He shrugged his shoulders with a "don't bother me, I'm not
doing anything" attitude. It was then that I knew he'd set
me up. He'd set up the place for me at the table just to
shut me up until the police could arrive to take his
opponent away. No wonder no one would say that they had
backed down when I asked if I should shut up. I wonder if
Dave was in on the planning of all the exclusions, this just
being the first time he had to come out and directly help
the organisers. I'll admit he fooled me completely. I feel
like such a jerk for having thanked him for getting me in
the game when he was actually helping them get me ejected
quietly. I guess he really needs the job that badly.

So the two officers came up and asked me to inform me that I
had been asked to leave and that I had to go with them.
Sure, I packed up, moaning and quipping about the unfairness
of it all and left the stage. Then I took a seat in the
audience. Gasps. The officer said that I had to go with him.
I pointed out: "they let me stay in the audience at the
Chamber of Commerce meeting." The officer said that the lady
wanted me out. So I left, quipping about the crookedness of
it all all the way out the door.

So, let's count the pretexts for calling the police, all
different:
1) Philp removed me for showing my party button;
2) Principal found my platform offensive;
3) Chamber sent out invites before close of nominations;
4) University Women do not allow independent thought.

I guess I'm only going to get only one opportunity to tell
Dave Levac to his face what I think of him setting me up for
a quiet fall. That's at the Paris High School debate on
Tuesday Oct 2.

That's what's useful for the corruptos about getting all the
voting-aged students to all come to the same meeting at one
school. In earlier elections, the candidates would speak at
several schools. It was far easier to shut me out by busing
all the kids in to the same place so they only have to
corrupt one principal, Pauline Johnson's Sandy Hess, to do
the dirty deed that affected all the kids in the city.

But Paris was too far away and I've been invited to attend
at 10am on Tuesday morning, my one and only opportunity to
look Dave in the eye and call him on his undemocratic
treachery. I've got some great lines from past dealings with
other gutless chickens and these are going to really get
plucked. I wouldn't be surprised if Dave pulled some back-
room strings to get the Paris principal to help him get an
edge by excluding me from their debate like Sandy Hess
helped him get an edge by excluding me from her school. Pay-
back time for Dave Levac on Tuesday. I may even get the
chance again at the Farmer's meeting later that evening
though they didn't sent me an invitation.

In wonder how Michael-Allan Marion's going to spin another
candidate revolt that needed police intervention? No doubt
the Expositor will cover up the corruption of the process to
report that nothing unusual happened, just more of the same.


--
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 number of times the police have been called to prevent
participation in election debate against Dave Levac. Lucky
Dave gets to watch cops take away his opponent four times.
Tough not to win with the law on your side.

Last night's meeting was held by the University ladies at
North Park Collegiate. When I got there, I ran into Dave
Levac in the parking lot. He told me to lay off since he had
spoken up against the exclusion of candidates. I told him
that as the sitting M.P.P., all he had ever had to do was
threaten not to participate and they'd back down. I've seen
it happen before. He admitted I had a point.

Tory Dan McCreary and Green Ted Shelegy were at the door of
the auditorium so I mentioned I hoped there wouldn't be any
trouble tonight. When I got inside the auditorium, I noticed
that there were only 5 seats on the stage and quipped:
"looks like there's going to be trouble." The lady moderator
told me in front of Dave Levac and Brian Von Tilborg that I
had not been invited to participate and could sit in the
audience. When I challenged her why I couldn't participate,
she said it was because I was an independent and did not
have a party. That was the pretext the Brant University
Ladies had settled on the cheat me out of equal time.

I immediately started belly-aching about being excluded.
Every insulting barb I could think of. "Barring a candidate
because he's independent, where'd you go to school, Russia?"
You women should be ashamed of yourselves.

The lady moderator threatened to call the police if I didn't
sit down. I told her to go make her call, I wasn't going to
let her cheat me without using the full force of the law. I
engaged a few people in the audience as I bemoaned the
corruption of the democratic process by these university-
educated women. I said "give me some farmers any day." Then
I had to add: "the farmers haven't invited me to their
debate either so that's not true, seems you're all crooked."
"What a bad example you are for your children."

I urged Dave and Brian to speak up and insist on all the
candidates. Don't let her cheat me. What would she know
about sportsmanship. Come on, have some integrity and don't
let her do this.

I mentioned that I'd probably have to submit this to the
Guinness Book of Records for the candidate most times
prevented from participation in political debates by the
full force of the law.

Police to remove me from a debate four times. Wow. I don't
remember any corruption of election where they called the
police twice, let alone four times. It's certainly a record
for me. In a democratic country, of course. Anyone in a
dictatorship can say they were kept from participating in
the electoral process "all the time." I've only rarely been
denied democracy in a democracy, but four times, that's a
record.

Then I went outside and ran into Ted and Dan and urged them
to do something. Dan said he'd spoken up before but that
"it's their debate" and he had to obey." I said he didn't
have to let them cheat me. I thanked him but said it was
only words, now was the time for some leadership.

Back inside the hall, I continued heckling the cheats,
bemoaning how their board was making all of Brantford's
University women look bad.

Then I started urging the candidates to have some balls, to
stand up to the uppity women. I kept reminding Dave how
Liberal Lowell Green had stood up for me, how Tory Graham
Bird had too. Should of reminded Dave of the time in 1980
when I was protesting outside the venue of a debate from
which I had been excluded and Liberal Sheila Copps made the
moderator invite me in! Sheila was a Liberal with balls.

Michael-Allan Marion came in and I started heckling him
about being caught in his fabrication that tried to cover
for Philp having no excuse for barring me by making up a
story that I'd continued making caustic remarks. I urged
everyone to tune in at 8pm on Sep 29, Oct 6 and 8 to watch
Marion's fabrication being exposed. It's not as if I'm going
to get fair treatment out of him, right?

So I kept needling my opponents to show some balls, maybe it
was too bad there weren't any women candidates with the
balls to stand up to these crooked women. Come on, if you
all threaten to walk, they'll give in. Come on Dave, show
some leadership. You're the M.P.P. They'll listen."

After awhile, I noticed Dave Levac going into the back room
and coming out with another table. They started setting it
up beside the first table so I quipped: Say I'm on the
debate and I'll shut up right now." Strangely, no one said
anything. I repeated: if I'm getting on, I'll shut up right
now." Still no response. But a place was opened up so we all
sat down, I shut up, and thanked them saying they'd come out
of it heroes. Not too many candidates show such balls.

After a while with nothing happening, I mentioned that the
moderator was probably out in the hall explaining to the
police that they weren't needed any more. I told Brian who
was sitting beside me about another meeting where the
moderator had called the police, then the audience had voted
that I be permitted to stay, and the moderator had to
explain when the police arrived why he had called. What I
didn't tell him was that it was a 1982 meeting where I was
running against his former silk-stockinged leader Bob Rae
who had later explained that Evelyn Gigantes was right to
stay after the Tory Graham Bird and Liberal Lowell Green had
walked off refusing to take advantage of the excluded
candidates. In 1982, Bob had said nothing to help me get on
the debate but the audience had! That's when I told him:
"Dominion's might like gutless chickens but I don't."

So after snickering about what might be the holdup, I
pointed out that the police were now inside the auditorium
speaking to the moderator. Then I noticed them start towards
the stage and said: "Oh no. Come on Dave, speak up.
  He shrugged his shoulders with a "don't bother me, I'm not
doing anything" attitude. It was then that I knew he'd set
me up. He'd set up the place for me at the table just to
shut me up until the police could arrive to take his
opponent away. No wonder no one would say that they had
backed down when I asked if I should shut up. I wonder if
Dave was in on the planning of all the exclusions, this just
being the first time he had to come out and directly help
the organisers. I'll admit he fooled me completely. I feel
like such a jerk for having thanked him for getting me in
the game when he was actually helping them get me ejected
quietly. I guess he really needs the job that badly.

So the two officers came up and asked me to inform me that I
had been asked to leave and that I had to go with them.
Sure, I packed up, moaning and quipping about the unfairness
of it all and left the stage. Then I took a seat in the
audience. Gasps. The officer said that I had to go with him.
I pointed out: "they let me stay in the audience at the
Chamber of Commerce meeting." The officer said that the lady
wanted me out. So I left, quipping about the crookedness of
it all all the way out the door.

So, let's count the pretexts for calling the police, all
different:
1) Philp removed me for showing my party button;
2) Principal found my platform offensive;
3) Chamber sent out invites before close of nominations;
4) University Women do not allow independent thought.

I guess I'm only going to get only one opportunity to tell
Dave Levac to his face what I think of him setting me up for
a quiet fall. That's at the Paris High School debate on
Tuesday Oct 2.

That's what's useful for the corruptos about getting all the
voting-aged students to all come to the same meeting at one
school. In earlier elections, the candidates would speak at
several schools. It was far easier to shut me out by busing
all the kids in to the same place so they only have to
corrupt one principal, Pauline Johnson's Sandy Hess, to do
the dirty deed that affected all the kids in the city.

But Paris was too far away and I've been invited to attend
at 10am on Tuesday morning, my one and only opportunity to
look Dave in the eye and call him on his undemocratic
treachery. I've got some great lines from past dealings with
other gutless chickens and these are going to really get
plucked. I wouldn't be surprised if Dave pulled some back-
room strings to get the Paris principal to help him get an
edge by excluding me from their debate like Sandy Hess
helped him get an edge by excluding me from her school. Pay-
back time for Dave Levac on Tuesday. I may even get the
chance again at the Farmer's meeting later that evening
though they didn't sent me an invitation.

In wonder how Michael-Allan Marion's going to spin another
candidate revolt that needed police intervention? No doubt
the Expositor will cover up the corruption of the process to
report that nothing unusual happened, just more of the same.


--
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: This is turning into quite a record number of times the
police have been called to prevent unauthorized
participation in election debate. First, a few corrections
needed from yesterday's post. I had written that I had
missed the John Noble meeting because "it wasn't mentioned
in the Expositor like the other upcoming meetings even
though they did send a reporter." It had been mentioned in
the same paragraph as the Pauline Johnson School meeting. I
just jumped into action to get to the school and missed the
rest of the paragraph that mentioned the all-candidates
meeting at John Noble. They should have still sent me an
invitation but it was my fault I hadn't noticed the
announcement. Sad to think I missed the only meeting where
they didn't have police to charge me if I tried to
participate.

And I'd written: "as for today's Brantford Expositor, no
story about the candidate exclusion and revolt at Pauline
Johnson." Actually, there was a report:

>Candidates say keep BCI on Brant Ave
>Brantford Expositor Sep 26 2007
>by Cheryl Bauslaugh
CB: Brant provincial candidates parried questions about the
future of Brantford Collegiate Institute, funding for faith-
based schools and the high cost of a post-secondary
education in a student forum Tuesday afternoon at Pauline
Johnson Collegiate.

JCT: Not "Brant candidates parried questions..." but "Some
Brant provincial candidates parried questions..." Later, she
mentions:

CB: Five of the six candidates participated in the debate
which was attended by students from across Brantford and
Brant County. Independent candidate John Turmel was not
invited. He was warned in advance by letter by PJC's
principal that he could be charged with trespassing if he
tried to participate. He did, however, show up outside the
school to protest.

JCT: No reason why. No mention of what the candidates had
said about it. No mention of their criticism of Philp which
may have deterred others from trying to pervert democracy.
Just that one candidate is excluded and everybody better get
used to it because they're not going to tell anyone why and
the reporters won't ask. Cheryl's nose for news must have
been pretty plugged up. Or maybe there's no story when this
is just happens to be the way democracy works in Brantford.

So I was threatened with being charged with trespass by the
principal if I tried to participate in the debate. And there
was another debate last night by the Brantford Chamber of
Commerce at the Brantford Golf and Country Club to which I
had not been invited.

Rob Ferguson had urged me to attend and I just happened to
meet him on the bus on the way up. He kept saying "this is a
democracy and you're a registered candidate" and I could
only answer that it hadn't helped so far, had it? Tim Philp
had gotten away with perverting the democracy of his show
("his" show), Sandy Hess got away with soiling the integrity
of our contest in her school ("her" school), let's see if
Brantford's elite in the Chamber of Commerce are going to
pervert the democratic process too.

We got there with just minutes to spare before 7pm. I saw
that they'd hired a cop so I guess someone was going to be
excluded and it wasn't going to be Dave Levac. Cops mean
they aren't going to let all the candidates speak. Whenever
you see cops at a debate, you know it's to keep someone
quiet.

Sure enough, organizer Charlene Nicholson, V.P. of the
Chamber, got the candidates together outside the hall to
draw lots for speaking order. I introduced myself as the
sixth candidate and she informed me that I had not been
invited to participate but that I could remain in the
audience.

I thanked her for her kindness and entered the hall. But
instead of sitting in the audience, I went up on stage and
took one of the five chairs at the candidates' table. Of
course, the five candidates couldn't come in with me using
one of their chairs. Minutes started ticking by. Charlene
went over to the police officer who then came over to tell
me that I had to sit in the audience. I informed him that I
was a candidate and that I wanted to sit with my opponents.
He went back to check. Tick tock, tick, tock... When he came
back, he again said that I was not invited to speak and
would have to sit down in the audience.
I told him that the other candidates had spoken up against
my exclusion before and I was urging them to boycott the
debate unless I got to play too. He tried to give me reason
why I should move but I kept repeating that I wouldn't have
to move if my fellow opponents stood up for my right to
participate. Besides, what's he going to charge me, illegal
seating, trespass to chair? I don't think "Sitting in the
wrong chair" is in Criminal Code.

I kept saying that I'm not leaving until we hear if my
fellow candidates back up my right to stay or not, all the
while bemoaning out loud how I was a registered candidate
and that they had no right to bar me from participating.
They should be ashamed. So he went away to find out what to
do since I refused to switch chairs.

After awhile, Officer Sinning came back with the moderator
Peter Jackman, and said that the candidates had agreed with
my exclusion. I said I doubted it. Then the moderator spoke
up and said that the candidates had in fact not agreed but
that it didn't matter what the candidates wanted, the Board
had decided that I was not going to be allowed to
participate and I would have to sit down in the audience.
His reason? They had sent out the invitations before the
close of nominations and those who were nominated after the
invitations were sent out could not participate. No kidding.
It was written in stone and could not be changed. Har har
har har.

I told him that the candidates had been urged to walk rather
than let him cheat me out of my share. I peppered him with:
"Where'd you go to school, Moscow U?" "Where'd you learn
about democracy?" "Who do you think you are to pervert the
democratic integrity of the democratic process." "You fat-
cats should be ashamed." "I'm not leaving until the other
candidates say they want me to." "You have no right to
pervert our election." I really made the organisers look bad
as I berated them with barb after barb after barb, all taped
by the CKPC radio reporter though I don't think making the
city's fat cats look bad is going to make the news!

Quite a few people looked aghast though. If I'd have taken
my cheating quietly, they wouldn't even have known that
their menu of selections had been pre-censored by their
board. After more discussion, tick tock, tick tock, a good
10 minutes wasted, the officer finally said that if I didn't
move, he was going to have to charge me with trespassing.

In my past history, I've always made the cops eject me from
the debate rather than succumb to being cheated. So my
opponents who accepted my being cheated didn't have to see
me while they used my time. But this time, I decided to let
my opponents cheat me to my face. I'd stay to play a role in
this surreal situation sitting right in the front seat, the
victim, while my opponents got to use my share of free time.
I could have walked out but that would have lessened
everyone's discomfort. If I stayed, I also get to ask the
candidates if they agree with the format of the show and
heckle the organizers at the end of the show.

In his opening comments, Peter Jackman mentioned how their
members employed more than 25,000 people in Brantford. He
then introduced the candidates one at a time and after he'd
finished the fifth, I piped up from the front row: "And John
Turmel, independent, the sixth." There was some laughter.
Good to think someone sees the humor in having their right
to hear everyone corrupted by their pre-screeners. Oh right,
I forgot to mention that all the questions were written down
and handed in for Jackman to pre-screen. Just following the
Fuhrer Philp Format no doubt.

Dave Levac thanked the Chamber of Commerce for his chance to
speak to the voters. I quipped "a chance I didn't get."
Maybe if I had brown-nosed the city's elite as much as Dave
I'd have gotten the chance to speak to the voters too. My
having never had to brown-nose, Dave will always have the
edge over me in that category.

Only Rob Ferguson mentioned that there was a 6th candidate
in the room to whom the people should have a chance to
speak.

The actual questions and answers were more just more
forgettable drone, the five candidates reading their stock
scripts, some fumbling their lines. A few memorable lines:

M.P.P. Dave Levac said we were "hearing the poetry of
opposition." Just not hear any of my opposition poetry.

Levac: (on the land claims by the Six Nations natives,) "We
can't solve the problem with police. We're not living in a
police state."

In Dave Levac's closing statement, he again thanked Jackman
and the Chamber. I quipped: "for cheating me."

I'd been preparing my heckle job during the whole show. A
series of short one-line zingers. I'd even leaned over to
the CKPC radio reporter to say that: "It's not over when
it's over." He nodded knowingly. "You don't think I sat
through these 2 boring hours because I like feeling
excluded, do you? Pay-back time coming up."

The moment it ended, I, in my stentorian voice, shattered
the calm with: "Dave, police remove one of your opponents
and you don't call that a police state? These fat-cat
commies cheat me in this disgraceful farce of democratic
event and you think you're beating me fair and square? Dave,
don't you have any sportsmanship? You thank these fat-cat
commies for cheating your opponent?"
Dave was beating a hasty retreat from the room so I turned
my attention on the moderator: "Fat-cat Jackman's crew of
commies have 25,000 employees which must explain why he's
used to bossing everybody around." "Fat-cat Jackman should
be ashamed of himself? Where'd he learn about democracy?"

I heckled the whole crowd, calling them an elite of fat-cat
commies with no democratic ethics. "You'd better vote in a
new board quickly, these guys are making you look bad. "No
sportsmanship at this club. You should be ashamed."

Actually, there is no greater insult to rich person than
that of being unsportsmanlike. All rich people can afford to
be sportsmanlike and this is the supreme insult for the
rich. You could tell some were sick about it. No one gave me
a hard time except the odd organizer.

Officer Sinning came over to say that the organizers wanted
me to leave. I told him I wasn't ready to leave yet. He went
back to them. I kept bemoaning being cheated by the city's
elite, how the wealthy elite of Brantford should be ashamed.
Fat-cat Jackman's made you all look bad by cheating me.
Better vote a new board." Like I said, several were very
uncomfortable finding out what was being done in their name.

Finally, Officer Sinning came to inform me that if I did not
leave with him right away, he'd have to charge me with
trespassing. So I left with him moaning out loud how I was
being ejected for complaining too loud about the elite's
corruption of democracy.

Expositor Michael-Allan Marion was there, the reporter who
tried to cover the fact that Tim Philp had no legitimate
reason to ejecting me by fabricating a story that I had
continued making caustic remarks. So don't expect to get the
whole truth on tonight's quite unique P.R. fiasco for the
city's elite being branded unsportsmanlike after cheating a
political candidate for no stated reason from him:

>Candidates spar over Caledonia
>Brantford Expositor, Sep 27 2007
>Michael-Allan Marion

MAM: Brantford candidates in the Oct 10 provincial
byelection went at each other's with new gusto Wednesday
evening in a debate hosted by the Chamber of Commerce
Brantford-Brant.

JCT: There wasn't one humorous quip to break the monotony,
except for a couple from me. Absolutely nothing but the
usual drone of stock answers we heard on the Rogers debate,
the taping of which is coming up again at 8pm on Sunday Sep
29, Oct 6, Oct 8, (where I got ejected within the first 10
minutes by Fuhrer Philp for continued caustic remarks, lied
Marion), and Marion says this event had "new gusto." Har har
har. Compared to the police theatrics, it was mere
background noise.

MAM: Lined up in front of about 50 business people and
political supporters at the Brantford Golf and Country Club,
Liberal Dave Levac, Conservative Dan McCready, NDP Brian Van
Tilborg, Green Party candidate Ted Shelegy, and Rob Ferguson
of the Family Coalition sparred more sharply than in earlier
encounters.

JCT: Imagine how boring earlier meetings must have been if
this two-hour bore-fest with not one thing to elicit
audience reaction is called sparring "more sharply." Har har
har. Such dull blades sparring so much more sharply.

MAM: Independent candidate John Turmel was barred from
participation.

JCT: That's it. No nose for news sniffing out the why? Then
he went on to his report of all the forgettable things he
wrote down and ended with:

MAM: Chamber officials would not allow Turmel to participate
in the debate, but said that he could stay as a spectator.
He was asked to leave the debating table before the event
began, as a police officer looked on.

JCT: What a lot of distortions in one 4-line paragraph. The
police officer had not looked on, he had threatened me with
a trespass if I didn't move. And I had left the debating
table not before the event began but 10 minutes after the
event had been slated to begin. And of course, since there's
no valid reason for the elite of Brantford to have cheated
me so, there's no finding out why they had had cops on hand
to prevent me from participating. So far, no one's been
called to task. Oh right, the chamber sent out their invites
before the close of nominations and candidates registered
after the invites have been sent out certainly can't be
allowed to participate, it's written in stone.

Har har har har har. What a shameful episode in Brantford's
and Ontario's political history. Abetted by crooked
journalists in covering it all up. I think CKPC didn't do
anything with their tape either. After all, the people don't
need to be told what the press say they don't need to know.

>Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:32:42 -0700
>From: tboyle@... (Todd Boyle)
>Subject: Re: [ijccr] TURMEL: Included candidates
>To: turmel@... Cc: brantford@yahoogroups.com

John, why are you spamming the list with your political
campaign news? That's got little or nothing to do with our
group contract, to discuss matters related to community
currencies. You're outside the contract here! Kind regards
Todd

JCT: http://yahoogroups.com/group/ijccr is an International
Journal of Community Currency Research group and you don't
think my political campaign to promote community currency is
relevant to this community currency group? That's your
opinion. So don't read it.


--
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 went to the Pauline Johnson School debate locale but
didn't get in. I had printed up flyers with principal Sandy
Hess's letter threatening me with trespass on one side and
my letter to the Returning Officer asking for a letter for
access despite an uppity principal.

I handed out the flyers to the students as they were
entering. One told that the police were there so I made sure
to stay on the sidewalk and not step onto school property.

Of course, I know why they barred me. It had to do with the
last time fuhrer teacher Geoff Goodall tried to stop me from
passing out my pro-marijuana flyer. So when I told the kids
marijuana was why I wasn't allowed to speak to them like the
others, they always cheered for it. Not many are alcoholics
like their parents. Seem they're all herbalists.

I was talking to a dozen when a big burly teacher, probably
the Phys-Ed coach, came out to tell them to get in. Some
went, others stayed. At one point, every kid off a bus took
a flyer when I said: "here's what your principal has done,
shame on her." And the crowd grew with every busload.

Then a young Brantford Expositor reporter came over to ask
about my protest. I pointed out how the principal's initial
premise that I had not been invited was false. I had. So why
had the police been called then and why now? Why had I been
barred. He said he was going to in and would make sure to
ask. Gave him a copy of letter to other candidates cited in
last blog post.

I'm hoping the other candidates manage to convince the
principal from fouling the democratic integrity of our race.
My problem was that I volunteer at the John Noble Nursing
Home every last Tuesday of the month and it's when they have
entertainment that they plan their birthday parties for the
month. I was due to play that afternoon at 1:40pm. So I
called up the recreation director and said that if the other
candidates got me in, I'd have to miss giving the concert.
If not, I'd hop the 1:15 bus in front of the school and be
there right on time. So, by 1:10, it seemed the other
candidates had not managed to prevent the teacher fuhrers
from soiling our contest so I hopped the bus to John Noble
Nursing Home in time for the concert.

Why do I mention the John Noble Home? I was on the bus later
that evening and I ran into Rob Ferguson, Family Coalition
candidate coming back from an all-candidates debate. I said
I hadn't been invited, where had it taken place? Get this,
at the John Noble Home by their nurses association. He said
that they're prepared a chair, a sign with my name,
everything but no one contacted me about! And it wasn't
mentioned in the Expositor like the other upcoming meetings
even though they did send a reporter.

Ferguson told me that while they were waiting in the
Teacher's Room, Superintendent Hess came in and said that
Turmel was outside causing a ruckus. I guess when she's
framing a trespass charge for the police, my standing there
passing out flyers is construed as a "ruckus." I guess
copies of her shameful letter in the hands of so many
students, with my complaint to Elections Ontario, did seem
like a ruckus after she had expected a quiet exclusion that
no one would have heard about. Not only was the reporter
asking why I'd been barred but the candidates were
condemning barring candidates! Talk about a ruckus in her
day.

Especially when it gets out that I was banned because the
teacher fuhrers didn't like my pro-marijuana flyer the last
time, it should really make them look bad. It would be nice
if he mentions that I had been invited the last time, that
her first sentence is false. I made sure to point it out and
he was aware of the last meeting there.

Rob Ferguson also said that Dan McCreary started the ball
rolling in criticizing Fuhrer Philp's Big Brother rules and
all the other candidates agreed. Why not, they were all
pushed around with me by Big Brother Philp. I wonder how
they're going to spin it, having candidates condemn an
undemocratic debate to an audience whose menu of candidates
is being censored by their principal in the very same way
for the same candidate at the very moment! And I was very
gratified to hear that exclusion of candidates had been one
of the topics discussed at the meeting. Tough not to report
on such a hot issue.

Rob also said that they did admit that the reason I was
barred was my promotion of marijuana! Wow. What a blunder.
There is even a "marijuana party" that is not barred from
debates but Turmel supporting marijuana is? It's just a very
lousy easily-rebutted pretext for being petty dictators.

Rob Ferguson expanded on his information:

>Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 23:57:55 -0400
>From: rfergusonca2@... (rob ferguson)
>Subject: RE: TURMEL: Excluded from Pauline Johnson debate?
>To: turmel@...
Like I said on the bus I and many other candidates support
you in debates. It is agreed that the exclusion of
independent and the overlooking of small parties does
happen. It should not but for some reason does. Most
candidates at the Rogers debate were not impressed by Mr
Philp. If I can quote Dan McCreary as he spoke to students
at pj "It was not a candidate thing it was a bad call by the
moderator."

JCT: Hope the reporter quotes him. And I got to point out
that I have not been invited to the Wednesday candidates
meeting by the Brantford-Brant Chamber of Commerce nor
Thursday's meeting by the Brant Women in Action and
University Women's Club of Brant. Wonder if I'll get an
invite before his evening or whether the Philp Formula will
keep me out.

More Fuhrer Philp news:

>Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:14:31 -0400
>Thread-Topic: Programming on Rogers during Ontario General
>Election - Brant (Case ID 361276)
>Thread-Index: Acf/sK6KAKIep0paQ9Sic+LGeqm6zw=
>From: "CRTC DONOTRESPOND <crtcdonotrespond@...>
>To: <johnturmel@...>

Dear Mr. Turmel:

Thanks for contacting the CRTC with your concerns.

It's the broadcasters themselves - not the CRTC - who are
responsible for the programming they provide. This is
spelled out in the Broadcasting Act. Our job is to make sure
broadcasters have acted responsibly - and to hold them
accountable for their programming when it's called for.

In order to follow this matter, I am asking Rogers, by copy
of this message, to respond directly to you within three
weeks and to send us a copy of its reply for review by
Commission staff. I am also asking that it hold a tape of
the broadcast in question until your case is resolved. You
will hear from us again if any regulatory action is
required.

JCT: By three weeks, the election will be over and it won't
be fixable. Talk about not seeing the problem or just being
bureaucratically obtuse.

Your complaint and all related correspondence will be placed
on Rogers's public file at the end of three weeks.

JCT: That's always the enjoyable part, know my complint
against Fuhrer Philp's lousy format gets to become part of
telecommunications history.

The Commission may review it at licence renewal time and
interested parties may consult the file at any time.

JCT: Yes, I'd love to see how Mr. Rogers feels about Philp
when I get to criticize the renewal of their license
because Philp can't be trusted with the democratic process.

In accordance with your rights under the Privacy Act, you
may refuse to have your correspondence placed on such a
file. If that is the case, please contact us within three
weeks of the date of this response by clicking on the link
provided below, by mail, fax or telephone, quoting the
reference number. Please note that the Commission may not be
able to pursue your complaint if all correspondence cannot
be made public.

JCT: Not a chance do I want my only response to Fuhrer's
Philp's aggression, cops called for holding up a sticker, to
not be set down in government stone.

I am also providing you with a link to the Fact Sheet
entitled "How to file a Broadcasting Complaint" which
explains the CRTC complaints process :
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/INFO_SHT/G8.htm
Sincerely, Mireille Albert CRTC Client Services
1-877-249-2782 / telecopieur/facsimile (819) 994-0218
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission / Ottawa,
Ontario K1A 0N2
Gouvernement du Canada / Government of Canada
c.c.: Rogers
Attachments:
1.DOC    incoming correspondence dated Sept. 23, 2007

JCT: Great stuff. But there's no time to wait for the CRTC
at snail-mail pace. I've got the response I can ask a judge
to judicially review. I asked to tape a 32 minute segment to
be added before or after the remaining three broadcasts and
have received no satisfaction. Now I can ask a Justice of
the Federal Court for Justice. Har har har har. Still, I'll
try. It all goes down on official record! And Turmel's blog.

And as for today's Brantford Expositor, no story about the
candidate exclusion and revolt at Pauline Johnson. Just a
big story about the John Noble meeting. David Judd
completely squelched the young reporter's story. Hey, if the
publisher doesn't publish the truth, no one knows, do they?
Imagine squelching such a big story with the whole world
watching. So it looks like they got away with it. Almost no
one's the wiser about what the debate controllers have done
and the local newspaper has covered up.

Luckily, I'm using http://yahoogroups.com/group/brantford
where anyone citizen can read my remarks and end-run the
local censored rag. If they know where to look. Still, I'm
not hard to find. Yet, most don't even know there's a battle
going on. When the press don't report it, no one knows what
they're missing.

Anyway, the newspaper Fuhrer Philp's works for, the
Expositor, may be able to cover up criticisms of him but
can't stop them from being used now. I need it official that
they're not going to give me the share of time due because
of Philp's "bad call." So:

>Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:12:28 -0400 (EDT)
>From: turmel@... (John Turmel)
>Subject: Turmel: Do I get my equitable share of time or
not?
>To: tphilp@...
>Cc: ted@..., rfergusonca2@...,
brian@..., DMcCreary@...,
dlevac.mpp.co@..., brantford@yahoogroups.com

JCT: You have no doubt been informed of my complaint to the
CRTC about your decision to deny me an equitable share of
the Sep 18 2007 partisan political free-time broadcast on
Rogers Cable TV. This is a violation of the CRTC
regulations.

It would take a 32 minute segment added to the last three
showings of your program to correct the inequity. It would
take a 48 minute segment if added to the last two programs.
96 if added to the last.

Despite your newspaper the Expositor today suppressing the
story, all the candidates at yesterday's Pauline Johnson
debate criticised your inequitable allocation of the time.

Unfortunately, the CRTC has given you until after the
election, 3 weeks, to respond. This is to inform you that if
Rogers does not offer to provide me with quantitatively and
qualitatively equitable air-time by the end of the day,
legal proceedings will be instituted claiming equitable time
which will springboard an embarrassing challenge to Rogers'
license for your undemocratic abuse of process.

JCT: So the suppression of candidate rights goes secretly
on, almost anyway. With the whole world watching the quality
of democracy in Canada. Har har har har.


--
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