Ontario Press Council confuses complaints

   JCT: I received a letter from the Ontario Press Council
   about my complaint about the Brantford Expositor's untrue
   editorial.

   >From: "Mel Sufrin" <info@...>
   >To: "John Turmel" <johnturmel@...>
   >CC: "David Judd" <djudd@...>
   >Subject: Re: Turmel Complaint about Brantford Expositor
   >Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 11:25:51 -0400

   Mr. Turmel:
   I wrote to you on May 29, 2006, to advise you that the Press
   Council had decided not to adjudicate your complaint against
   the Expositor in connection with the article and editorial
   about your actions at a provincial election meeting. The
   Press Council's constitution says its "discretion on whether
   to hear any complaint is absolute." In light of its
   decision, I don't see any possibility of the Council
   reopening the complaint.
   Merl Sufrin, Executive Secretary

   JCT: So I just wrote him back.

   Re: Turmel Complaint about 2007 editorial
   John C. Turmel, B. Eng.,
   8-37 Colborne St. E.,
   Brantford ON N3T 2G3,
   Tel/fax: 519-753-0645
   Email: johnturmel@...

   June 23 2008

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

   re: Expositor reply to "Turmel's Turmoil" editorial

   >To: "John Turmel" <johnturmel@...>
   >CC: "David Judd" <djudd@...>
   >Subject: Re: Turmel Complaint about Brantford Expositor
   >Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 11:25:51 -0400
   >Mr. Turmel:
   >I wrote to you on May 29, 2006, to advise you that the
   Press Council had decided not to adjudicate your complaint
   against the Expositor in connection with the article and
   editorial about your actions at a provincial election
   meeting. The Press Council's constitution says its
   "discretion on whether to hear any complaint is absolute."
   In light of its decision, I don't see any possibility of the
   Council reopening the complaint.
   >Mel Sufrin, Executive Secretary

   I acknowledge you wrote in 2006 to advise me that the Press
   Council had decided not to adjudicate my complaint against
   the Expositor in connection with the articles and editorial
   in 2006 about my actions at a provincial election meeting in
   2006.
   You now say the Press Council's constitution says its
   "discretion on whether to hear any complaint is absolute,"
   no matter how obvious or egregious the offence, and you
   don't see any possibility of the Council reopening the
   complaint.
   I do not dispute that your constitution permitted you the
   discretion to duck your advertised responsibility and let
   the newspaper get away with its 2006 lies but I'm not asking
   you to re-open the complaint of 2006, I'm asking you to deal
   with the complaint about the new editorial from 2007.
   Whether I use the same tape recording of the event to prove
   the newspaper lied in its 2006 story about me to now prove
   it lied in the 2007 editorial about me is immaterial to the
   charge I have filed herein against the 2007 editorial.
   The fact the Council was derelict in its responsibility in
   2006 despite its absolute discretion to fail in its
   advertised duty to adjudicate complaints does not absolve it
   of having to deal with the complaint for 2007.
   Because the Ontario Press Council let the paper get away
   with its 2006 lies does not give the newspaper carte blanche
   to treat the those lies as repeatable truths in 2007.
   As you pointed out, the Council has the absolute discretion
   to do nothing despite its stated function. But just because
   you did nothing about the 2006 libel does not absolve you
   from doing something about the 2007 libel.
   Despite the Ontario Press Council ducking its responsibility
   to deal with the lies in the 2006 story, I request the
   Ontario Press Council fulfill your mandate and deal with the
   lies in the 2007 editorial.
   Yours truly,
   John C. Turmel, B.Eng.

   CC: "David Judd" <djudd@...>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

After having been provided a free mail-box at the National
   Capital Freenet in Ottawa for the past decade and a half,
   turmel@..., the execdir@... John Selwyn has insisted
   on a $60 a year contribution for me to keep my mailbox.
   As I use Bell Sympatico from Brantford and only telnet to
   Freenet to use a mailbox that is offered for free almost
   everywhere else, I've had to give up my long-standing Ottawa
   Freenet account.
   Not quite Free Net, is it?
   I will now be reached at:
   johnturmel@...
   johnturmel@...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

JCT: Brantford Expositor David Judd has responded to my
   complaints about a false story about me and omissions from
   my letter of complaint:

   >Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:59:52 -0400 (EDT)
   >From: djudd@... (David Judd)
   >Subject: expositor letter to the editor
   >To: turmel@...


   Mr. Turmel:
   Mel Sufrin of the Ontario Press Council has asked me to
   respond to your complaint of Nov. 7, 2007.
   On Oct. 5, 2007, The Expositor published your letter to the
   editor in response to our editorial 'Turmel's turmoil' of
   Sept. 29.
   The letter was published substantially as written. URLs were
   omitted from the letter because, as I wrote to you in an e-
   mail, they did not link to the items that you intended. The
   URLs did not go to your 'transcript' (which we do not accept
   as complete) nor to your complaint to the press council. The
   URLs went only to a page urging readers to sign up for Yahoo
   groups.
   I tested the URLs a couple of times and they failed to go to
   the intended pages. As such, I edited them from your letter.
   David Judd Managing editor

   JCT: Not a word about the false story that was the subject
   of my original complaint, so I wrote to the Press Council:

   May 27 2008
   Mel Sufrin,
   Ontario Press Council
   2 Carlton Street, #1706
   Toronto, ON M5B 1J3
   Tel/fax: 416-340-1981/8724
   Email: info@...

   re: Expositor reply to "Turmel's Turmoil" editorial

   Dear Sir:

   On April 14 2008, Expositor Editor David Judd responded to
   my complaint about the "Turmel's Turmoil" editorial which
   repeated false allegations about my behavior and statements
   at a previous 2006 political debate in a report by Michael
   Allan Marion for which I had originally complained to the
   Ontario Press Council in 2006 (with tape recording) and
   about the omission of URLs backing up my complaint from my
   letter.

   Editor David Judd answers the complaint about the omission
   of the URLs without dealing with the veracity of the 2006
   original report which, touted his Editor's note:
   "The Expositor stands by the accuracy of Michael-Allan
   Marion's reporting about John Turmel."

   This is the real issue Mr. Judd has not dealt with, the
   original complaint about the repetition of the false 2006
   report behind which Mr. Judd stands, not merely the
   subsequent complaint about whether the omissions from my
   complaint were warranted.

   I hope Mr. Judd answers the real question. If not, I think
   the Press Council should.
   Yours truly,
   John C. Turmel

   JCT: So now we wait to see what Judd has to say about the
   false story. Remember, the last time I complained to the
   Council about the reporter's lie, Judd refused to respond
   and the Council then decided not to have a trial of the
   issue for which there was no defence.

   Now Judd's taken the opportunity to tackle a subsidiary
   issue while once again not having an answer for the veracity
   of the report he says he stands behind. When he ducks it
   again, what are the odds the Press Council will duck it
   again too?



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

JCT: Last month, I had over 2 hours worth of my court
   abolish marijuana prohibitionb adventures recorded and I've
   just sent it up to Google in four pieces.

   I know I haven't been publishing much but after my 21
   applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme court of
   Canada were all finally thwarted, not even dismissed, there
   hasn't been much to cheer about. A few small wins though.
   http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/MedPot/messages

   Still, our Parker-Krieger Invalidation of the cultivation
   and possession prohibitions are the best defence anyone can
   offer and still daunt the Crown. The forms are still
   available and still usable even though they've been
   dismissed.
   http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/mpforms.htm

   After all, we know we're right, prohibition anti-
   seizure medicine for epileptics has caused deaths and we
   have a right, in life and death situations, to keep coming
   back at them with the same logical argument until we catch a
   judge with a non-deformed brain. And George Orwell didn't
   think too many could withstand the double-think double-speak
   conditioning and that seems to be the evident result from
   all our efforts to get these law-trained (brain-washed)
   people to understand the illogic of their rulings.
   This is only a first draft but it tells the story,
   especially the first years, in sufficient detail, based on
   http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/timeline.htm

   Abolish Marijuana Prohibition #1
   by King of the Paupers John "The Engineer" Turmel
   http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3686209668348550006

   Abolish Marijuana Prohibition #2
   by King of the Paupers John "The Engineer" Turmel
   http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8182979880940106052

   Abolish Marijuana Prohibition #3
   by King of the Paupers John "The Engineer" Turmel
   http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6452235162639758859

   Abolish Marijuana Prohibition #4
   by King of the Paupers John "The Engineer" Turmel
   http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=231837479215793502




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

JCT: Just a reminder that I'll be doing the whole history of
the real Abolish Prohibition movement in Canada:

Who: John "The Medpot Engineer" Turmel

What: Canada's Marijuana Prohibition Conspiracy

Where: Conspiracy Culture http://www.conspiracyculture.com

When: Monday April 21 2008 7pm-9pm.

Why: The eye-witness story of how Canada's marijuana
possession prohibition was invalidated by the Terry Parker's
court decision in 2001 and then resurrected by the Hitzig
court decision in 2003, not by Parliament. But the Hitzig
resurrection of the law by the courts is invalid and they're
still busting people while the law remains dead.

Entry Fee: $2
R.S.V.P. patrick@...

JCT: To get an idea of the material, I'll be using many
topics from the MedPot group messages at
http://yahoogroups.com/group/MedPot/files/mptopics.txt


--
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

>Dear Mr. Turmel,
>I am writing to inform you of the passing of Capt. David Astle
>on April 10, 2008. I am executrix of his estate and thought
>that you should know of his passing.
>JoAnne Wass

JCT: I'm so sad to hear that.
I've always propounded his book "The Babylonian Woe" as the
greatest work on banking systems engineering in antiquity ever
written and have a book report on it at my home page.

http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/babyl00.htm
>>Turmel Book Reports:
David Astle: The Babylonian Woe The very best book on the history
of money ever written by someone who had a full understanding of
the banking system engineering. Self-published, it is priceless.
<<

Mr. Astle has had a worthy impact on the most important subject to the
salvation of the humanity and the planet.
His soul has no doubt earned an exalted place in that special Heaven that
Abolitionists of Debt Slavery Usury all reach. I imagine he's now
partying with the likes of Nehemiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jesus, Mohammed,
Bhudda, King Henry 1, Abe Lincoln, Louis Even, Bible Bill Aberhart,
Adelard Turmel and Gilbert Rondeau.

What are you going to do with his library, no doubt,
an exceptional font of monetary wisdom? It would be a
tragedy to let the Keepers of Usury get their hands on
them for destruction down the memory hole.

I have copied this to the rest of my world so all know of the
passing of one of our century's great monetary reformers, a
worthy ally and a true Abolitionist of Usury!


--
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: http://yahoogroups.com/group/turmel/message/3428 is my
letter of complaint to the Ontario Press Council about the
Brantford Expositor's editorial that lied about me.

On November 23 2007, Mel Sufrin, Executive Secretary, wrote:

Dear Mr. Turmel:
Thank you for your faxed November 7 letter apparently
complaining about the deletion of URLS from your letter to
the editor.

JCT: That was only part of the complaint.

I am sending a copy of this correspondence to the newspaper.
I must add, however, that the Press Council's policy
statement on letters to the editor says:
"In addition to the quality of letters and the space
available, the Council keeps in mind the basic principle
that a newspaper's responsibilities under the law and to the
marketplace for what it publishes call for an unfettered
right to decide what to publish, what not to publish, and
how to edit what it does publish."
Sincerely yours,
Mel Sufrin

JCT: Why is he concentrating only on what David Judd cut
from my letter rather than the lie he repeated?

Anyway, having heard nothing in months, I wrote to prod him:

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

Thursday April 10 2008

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. Last November, I sent a letter of complaint to the
Ontario Press Council about a Sep 29 2007 Brantford
Expositor editorial titled "Turmel's Turmoil" which
contained a fabrication about me.

2. The Council's Nov 23 2007 letter informed me that the
correspondence had been sent to the Expositor for comment.

3. You'll remember that I had complained about the same
fabrication in a previous election campaign and when the
Expositor refused to provide an explanation, the Council
decided to abort the complaint procedure.

4. Once again, it seems the Expositor has failed to offer a
defence.

5. Is the Council going to do something or shirk its
responsibility again?

Yours truly,
John C. Turmel
Cc: David Judd opinion@...

JCT: So let's see if the Press Council ducks its
responsibilities once 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

Who: John "The Medpot Engineer" Turmel

What: Canada's Marijuana Prohibition Conspiracy

Where: Conspiracy Culture http://www.conspiracyculture.com

When: Monday April 21 2008 7pm-9pm.

Why: The eye-witness story of how Canada's marijuana
possession prohibition was invalidated by the Terry Parker's
court decision in 2001 and then resurrected by the Hitzig
court decision in 2003, not by Parliament. But the Hitzig
resurrection of the law by the courts is invalid and they're
still busting people while the law remains dead.

Entry Fee: $2

R.S.V.P.


--
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: Terry Parker, who won the original invalidation of the
marijuana prohibition in Canada before Alan Young won its
revalidation, had his marijuana seized by Canada Post and he
filed a Section 24 application for the return of his
controlled substance.

The Crown argued that his exemption expired at some point in
the past and that he should go doctor-shopping since there
are some doctors in Ontario who will sign though the most
will not,

For a whole slew of reasons, Terry argued that he was still
exempted from the possession offence, though they were
rejected by Judge Clements. We have his decision but it's
too big to transcribe right now.

Still, it had to be appealed. The only problem is that no
one has ever appealed a decision refusing a Section 24
application.

I knew we had to have a right to appeal but the only
possible rule we could use was under the "Summary
Conviction" section for appeals of prerogative remedies
which said that when there was no official route to appeal,
they would use this Rule 40 route to appeal. So I did:

      If you go to
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/scj/en/about/rules/rules.htm
you read how an appeal works under section 40. Terry files
his Notice of Appeal and then the clerk faxes a copy to the
Crown. We file our paperwork, the Crown files theirs, then
we go to court.

Court File No. _________
                   SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
                     (Criminal Division)

Between:
                       Terrance Parker
                                                    Appellant
                             and
                    Her Majesty the Queen
                                                   Respondent

                       NOTICE OF APPEAL

TAKE NOTICE THAT Terrance Parker hereby appeals the Nov 28
2007 decision of Judge Clements of the Ontario Court of
Justice at Brampton which refused Appellant's Section 24
application for the return of a controlled substance.
THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL ARE that there currently exists no
statute known to law prohibiting the Appellant from
cultivating and possessing marijuana and, in the
alternative, if there were, Appellant is exempted.
Dated at Brampton on Dec 28 2007.

For the Appellant:
Terrance Parker
2209-55 Triller Ave.
Toronto, Ontario, M6R-2H6
Tel: 416.533.7756 Fax: 416.632.2334
E: terryparkerjr@...

TO: The Registrar of the Court in Brampton

AND TO: Department of Justice,
Ontario Regional Office,
The Exchange Tower,
3400-130 King St. W. Box 36
Toronto M5X 1K6
Tel: 416-973-0392 Fax: 416-952-0298
File: ORO.2-575719

      But when Terry got to the Court Registry, the court
clerk refused to accept his Notice of Appeal since there was
no route to appeal out of Section 24. Terry was told that we
had to file an application of some kind, that it couldn't be
filed as a Notice of Appeal.

      Before the 30-day deadline expired, I served a copy of
the same notice of appeal on the Crown and got service. Then
I tried to get it filed in the Registry. The clerk called up
the Registrar but I just couldn't convince them that they
should treat the Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule 40 since
there was no other way. At least we'd filed if not served
his Notice of Appeal before the deadline had expired.

      Again, they insisted I had to go by way of an
application to the court, not a notice of appeal. So I did:

Court File No. _________
                   SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
                     (Criminal Division)
Between:
                    Her Majesty the Queen
                                                   Respondent
                             and
                       Terrance Parker
                                                    Applicant
                    NOTICE OF APPLICATION
TAKE NOTICE THAT on March 28 2008 at 10am, Terrance Parker
will bring an application at the Brampton Courthouse for an
Order overturning the Nov 28 2007 decision by Judge Clements
of the Ontario Court of Justice at Brampton to deny
Applicant's Section 24 application for the return of a
controlled substance, marijuana.

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

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

THE GROUNDS OF THE APPLICATION ARE that because the S.7(1)
and S.4(1) prohibitions have never been re-legislated by
Parliament after being struck down by Parker and Krieger
Courts of Appeal, there currently no longer exists any
prohibition known to law on cultivating or possessing
marijuana and, in the alternative, if there are, Applicant
is exempted by medical necessity; and such further other
grounds as counsel may advise.

In support of the application, the Applicant relies upon the
documentation already filed before Justice Clements.
THE RELIEF SOUGHT is an Order returning the controlled
substance to its rightful owner, the Applicant.
THE APPLICANT MAY BE SERVED WITH DOCUMENTS PERTINENT TO THIS
APPLICATION AT 2209-55 Triller Ave. Toronto, Ontario.
Dated at Toronto on March 22 2008.

For the Applicant:
Terrance Parker
2209-55 Triller Ave.
Toronto, Ontario, M6R-2H6
Tel: 416-533-7756 Fax: 519-753-0645
E: terryparkerjr@...

TO: The Registrar of the Court in Brampton

AND TO: Department of Justice,
Ontario Regional Office, The Exchange Tower,
3400-130 King St. W.
Box 36 Toronto M5X 1K6
Tel: 416-954-2929 Fax: 416-952-0298
File: ORO.2-575719
Per: James Gorham James.gorham@...

Court File No. _________
                   SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
                     (Criminal Division)
Between:
                    Her Majesty the Queen
                                                   Respondent
                             and
                       Terrance Parker
                                                    Applicant
                     APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT

I, Terrance Parker, residing at 2209-55 Triller Ave. in
Toronto, Ontario, make oath and say as follows.

1. Exhibit A is the Notice of Appeal of the Dec. 7 2007
final order of Justice Clements I tried to file On Dec. 28
2007 pursuant to Section 40.04 of the Criminal Proceedings
Rules. The Applicant had obtained a certificate in Form 2C
from the court reporter stating that copies of the
transcript were ordered.

2. The Brampton Superior Court Registrar rejected the Notice
of Appeal insisting it took an application for such relief.

3. On Jan. 7 2008, the 30th day, Applicant served a copy of
the Notice of Appeal on the Crown and tried to again
initiate appeal under section 40.04.

4. The Registrar's Office again insisted on an Application
for relief from the judgment and would not proceed under
Section 40.04.

5. The transcript of the decision has now been obtained and
the Applicant seeks an extension of time to file the Notice
of Application for leave to appeal if a 30-day limit to
appeal is involved.

6. This affidavit is made in support of an application for
relief from the decision of Justice Clements dated Dec. 7
2007.

Applicant: Terrance Parker
2209-55 Triller Ave.
Toronto, Ontario, M6R-2H6
Tel: 416-533-7756
Fax: 519-753-0645
E: terryparkerjr@...

Sworn before me
at Toronto on March 22 2008

__________________
A COMMISSIONER, ETC.

      On March 28, we appeared before Mr. Justice Tulloch. He
pointed out I didn't have the right to be Terry's agent in
Superior Court and I could only say I'd been permitted to
help over the past 7 years right up to the Court of Appeal.
After Crown James Gorham had a while to explain that Section
40 of the Act permitted to try to overturn the decision,
either by way of Certiorari, prerogative remedy over a
decision, or an appeal under the "other Orders" Rule 40.

It got complicated enough that the judge asked me to speak.
I said I could understand why the Registrar might have
refused to do something that's never been done at the
bidding of a non-lawyer but I could only agree with the
Crown that some way had to be the right way and it had
seemed to me that a Notice of Appeal of an "other order" was
the only way to get the return of the marijuana.

The Crown agreed and explained that a Certiorari Order may
have some effect on the lower judge's decision but it
wouldn't make the police give the marijuana back. So there
really wasn't much choice.

Justice Tulloch endorsed the application:
      "After hearing submissions from the Crown and the
Representative of Mr. Parker, Mr. Turmel, I am satisfied
that this court does have jurisdiction to hear an appeal in
this matter from the order of the Ontario Court, pursuant to
the Summary Conviction Appeal provisions of the Courts of
Justice Act, S.40.
      The Applicant must adhere to the procedures as outlined
in the Summary Conviction Appeals and file and serve the
necessary applications for appeal, factums, and Books of
Authorities.
      I am mindful of the fact that this not a summary
conviction appeal, however, the procedure as outlined in the
rules as they pertain to Summary Conviction Appeals should
be followed."

JCT: I then too the same Notice of Appeal down to the
Registry and mentioned that Justice Tulloch had just ruled
that it could be filed. Sure enough, they soon had a copy
of his endorsement and accepted it for filing.

      Think of all the running around we had to do, three
trips to Brampton for Terry and two for me just to get the
Notice of Appeal filed starting the process! Well, at least
I could cheer as Terry and I left that court-house that it
isn't often that we get to beat H.M.T.C., not H.M.T.Q. Her
Majesty the Queen, but Her Majesty The Clerk.

I've decided to read the Clements decision onto video and
publish it. So stay tuned.


--
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: Anyone notice that #1 and #2 no longer work?

     Having already run for Premier of Ontario in 1981, for Prime
     Minister of Canada in 1993, most people know who will be the
     first candidate registered if there's ever an election for
     Prime Minister or President of the planet.

     I've posted three 20 minute segments from my usury-week
     speech on Nov. 17 2007 in Brantford at Google videos.

     Title: King of the Paupers #1
     http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-5148269793302872657&pr=goog-sl

     Title: King of the Paupers #2
     http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=732053603630734547&pr=goog-sl

     Title: King of the Paupers #3
     http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=7502071564515940780&pr=goog-sl


--
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

Having already run for Premier of Ontario in 1981, for Prime
Minister of Canada in 1993, most people know who will be the
first candidate registered if there's ever an election for
Prime Minister or President of the planet.

I've posted three 20 minute segments from my usury-week
speech on Nov. 17 2007 in Brantford at Google videos.

Title: King of the Paupers #1
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-5148269793302872657&pr=goog-sl

Title: King of the Paupers #2
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=732053603630734547&pr=goog-sl

Title: King of the Paupers #3
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=7502071564515940780&pr=goog-sl

So I'm announcing my candidacy for Prime Minister of the
planet and will be uploading videos on the regular basis.


--
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: Johnny Dupuis called me last week to say that after 8 years
of trying, he has finally been granted an exemption to use
marijuana.

Johnny was one of the earlier fighters, one of the dynamic
duo to win the 30-day ultimatums for exemptions from Federal
Court Justice Rouleau back in 2001 with Robert Neron.

He did the live examination of Health Canada's Cindy Cripps-
Prawak obtaining a transcript which was paid for by Legal
Aid!

He was later with the Fabulous Five in Federal Court and was
one of the Heaven Eleven in Federal Court after Terry Parker
Day in 2001.

Glad to see that he's now legal. What took them so long?
Imagine all the pain and misery Health Canada could have
avoided if they'd just exempted him way back when. 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

>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