JCT: Marc Paquette wrote:

>Can a lower court judge overrule the Ontario Court of Appeal's
decision John?

JCT: The "stare decisis" (already decided) doctrine says judges
SHOULD follow precedents from above to avoid contradicting
themselves. But a judge MUST do what is just.

>Are there any risks that Justice Tulloch could be chastised by
the feds if he rules in Terry's favor.. and declare marijuana
prohibition unknown to law for all Canadians... as stated in the
Parker 2000 decision if the feds wouldn't comply to their
decision by the end of their "1" year deadline?

JCT: He cannot be chastised, he can only be overturned by his
bosses above and laughed at if he's wrong. But will he be
overturned if they were always wrong and he is now right? Though
a minority opinion is not always right, a right opinion on a
novel problem always starts with a minority of one.

Let's say we and he are all wrong and
- Alan Young's Hitzig Court did have the power to resurrect a
struck-down law despite there being no statute saying they can
because Crown Greg Smith convinced Judge Gehan Edward in the
Nielsens's case that they wouldn't have if they couldn't have so
they can and Judge Gehan sent them to their persecution;

- Justice Chapnik had the power to set aside equivalent Justice
Pitt's extending the Ontario Court of Appeal's criminal exemption
for Terry Parker as a civil default judgment;

- The Criminal Code doesn't have to be reprinted because the
Court of Appeal says they'll remember which laws therein have
been struck down and which have not.

- Finding the one doctor in 60 Ontario doctors is not an
unreasonable ordeal to put sick and dying people through;

- The O'Leary stay pending appeal continues to stay the Krieger
invalidation after the appeal is dismissed even if the
Sfetkopoulos stay died with the appeal at the Supreme Court.

Then a wrong Justice Tulloch would be overturned, ridiculed made
a laughingstock by the Court of Appeal.

But let's say we and he are all right and

- Alan Young's Hitzig court did not have the power to resurrect a
struck-down law because there is no statute saying they can and
Judge Edward was wrong to bow down to Crown Greg Smith's argument
that the higher court wouldn't have if they couldn't have so they
can and be forced to let the Nielsens be persecuted;

- Justice Pitt could only be overturned by 3 judges upon appeal
and Justice Chapnik did not have power in civil court to set
aside a criminal court remedy by an equivalent judge;

- The Criminal Code does have to be reprinted when courts strike
down bad laws because the strict interpretation of statutes
doctrine says the printed laws should be precise and courts can't
be left to remember which laws therein have been struck down and
which have not.

- Finding the one doctor in 60 Ontario doctors is too onerous an
ordeal to put sick and dying people through when all doctors
should have been compelled to treat;

- The O'Leary stay pending appeal of the Krieger invalidation
died when the appeal was dismissed like the Sfetkopoulos stay
died when the appeal was dismissed.

Then the right Justice Tulloch would be overturned but with no
laughter because he's right unless they simply restate why their
wrong reasons again. And we'd get to appeal his right decision
they couldn't make fun of to the top.

But also, a right Justice Tulloch might be affirmed by the higher
5-judge panel in over-turning the 3-judge Hitzig panel.

So a judge should always do what is just regardless of precedent
but the stare decisis gives the ball-less ones the Nuremberg out
that they were only following higher orders in letting 4
known Canadians a day die from epileptic seizures that could have
been prevented had it not been for their decision supporting the
prohibition that prevented them having their remedy.

Remember, every judge who had the power to save them and did not
has a 4*t K-slab where t= number of days.

Justices Doherty, Goudge and Simmons have 4*(over 2000 days in 6
years) for 8,000 dead epileptics they had the chance to save but
did not. Har har har har.

I always told them they were dealing with a question of genocide
of the sick and how are they going to feel when they realize
their grandchildren will probably have the math to understand
what The Engineer was telling them but chose not to believe.

And by then, we'll be able to dig up the names of the 8000
epileptics so their families will be able to personally find out
who were the three judges, Doherty, Goudge, Simmons, who, despite
the Engineer's math, let their loved ones die. Har har har har


Derek Francisco wrote:

> Yes it sure is John, he did like your argument! I'm sure he
also has some family members who are sick and use mj too!! ;)


JCT: Never thought of that but sure, he probably does have family
who will end up suffering if he denies them nature's best herbal
medication. Hope there are already some who would benefit.

Ken Surgent wrote:

> He has to follow precedent

JCT: Good precedent and bad precedent?

> no matter what,

JCT: Or what? Is someone going to put him in jail if he doesn't
follow stare decisis? Fire him? What? Nothing, that's what. Only
the quest for righteousness compels him to follow precedent. It's
a doctrine, not a law. The worst that can happen if he doesn't is
having his arguments rebutted and overturned and his being
laughed at. But no judge has to follow a bad precedent though we
agree it's a wise habit to follow a good precedent.

> or Terry has to appeal.

JCT: Or the Crown will have to appeal. Better the judge goes with
righteousness and not worry about who is going to be appealing.

> But now the Beren case is going to the SCC.

JCT: Beren, same as Sfetkopoulos, same as Hitzig, all finding
flaws in the MMAR exemption and not linking to the CDSA
prohibition. How many times do we expect to have flaws declared
in the exemption before it's failure becomes final?

> Kirk said they will cross appeal the access issue, which would
prolly address not enough doctors participating and no DIN for
cannabis.

JCT: So even if Justice Tulloch doesn't knock the doctors odds,
there's another shot.

> My doctor stated that he does not know the dosage or what can
be treated with cannabis. The bottom line is, that no clinical
testing has been done to issue a DIN. The government is at fault
and causing an unconstitutional condition by not funding the
research. Another barrier to access. JMO Ken

JCT: Whatever the reason that doctors are deterred from
participation, they should be compelled to participate if their
patient decides they want to.

So there seems to be only good news happening. Even the Insite
case may end up of help. But it all boils down to Judge Tulloch
goes with the "must obey higher orders, good or bad" or whether
he goes with whatever is righteous.

JCT: Next week's Time Magazine dated Monday, Jul. 13, 2009

http://205.188.238.181/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1908421,00.html

Monday, Jul. 13, 2009
Local Currencies
By Judith D. Schwartz

JDS: With local economies flailing, communities across the U.S. are
trying to drum up more action on Main Street. "Buy Local"
campaigns are one way to go. But many towns--from Ojai, Calif.,
to Greensboro, N.C.--are considering going a step further and
printing money that can only be spent locally.

JCT: It's like saying that because Ceasar's Palace chips can only
be spent in Ceasar's Palace, they can't be used anywhere else. Of
course, lots of people would accept them without living in Las
Vegas. So too, Ithaca Hours may only be "spent" in Ithaca stores
but they're still useful money to all their neighbors. So people
who say that local currencies can only be used locally have no
understanding of valuable negotiable IOUs.

JDS: Issuing an alternative currency is perfectly legal, as long
as it is treated as taxable income and consists of paper bills
rather than coins.

JCT: Don't make your coins look like US currency and it's okay. I
see nothing wrong with a copper dollar chip, even a plastic
dollar chip from your local casino supply house. Besides, the US
doesn't even have a dollar coin.

JDS: In the U.S., where local currencies were popular during the
Depression, the biggest alterna-cash system is in Massachusetts'
Berkshire County. Go to one of several banks there, hand a teller
$95 and get back $100 worth of BerkShares, a nice little discount
designed to reel in users.

JCT: Berkshares are the cash-buy-in community currency model,
like a casino bank. No chips issued if no one has any cash.

JDS: BerkShares are printed on special paper (by a local
business, naturally--a subsidiary of Crane Paper Co., which has
been printing U.S. greenbacks since 1879). And since the
program's inception in 2006, more than $2.5 million in BerkShares
have circulated through bakeries, vets' offices and some 400
other businesses that choose to accept the colorful bills, which
feature famous former Berkshire residents, including W.E.B. Du
Bois and Norman Rockwell.

JCT: The point is that though they can cash their chips out at
the 5% cash-out loss, they can also spend their chips locally
without incurring any 5% cash-out fee.

JDS: What's the point of all this pretty, community-printed
currency?

JCT: The benefit is quite obvious to people who have no credit.

JDS: Money spent at locally owned companies tends to create more
business for local suppliers, accountants, etc. The New Economics
Foundation (NEF), a London think tank, compared the effects of
purchasing produce at a supermarket and at a farmer's market and
found that twice the money stayed in a community when folks
bought locally. A study of Grand Rapids, Mich., released last
fall by consulting firm Civic Economics, concluded that a 10%
shift in market share from chain stores to independents would
yield 1,600 new jobs and pump $137 million into the area. "Money
is like blood," says NEF researcher David Boyle. Local purchases
recirculate it, but patronize mega-chains or online retailers, he
says, and "it flows out like a wound."

JCT: It's true that it raises market share for local stores as
long as big chain stores do not accept them. But what happens
when WalMart wises up? Actually, there'll be enough for all
because no one's paying any interest.

JDS: Interest in cash alternatives has skyrocketed in recent
months (BerkShares.org logged nearly 42,000 hits a day in April)
as the recession has encouraged more innovation. For example, a
Vermont business association is getting ready to launch a
statewide cashless trading network.

JCT: Good stuff. Means we'll be able to trade accommodations
throughout the state. Wait until they find out what they can do
with a state-wide time-trading network.

JDS: Ithaca, N.Y., which has the nation's longest-running
independent currency, agreed in June to let people start using
the 18-year-old bills to buy transit passes.

JCT: This is the time-buy-in model which allows people with no
money to use. Just like a casino bank accepts both assets (cash,
cars, checks, etc.) or markers (IOUs owed), so too, Ithaca could
also offer to take in cash buy-ins too. And Berkshares could
start lending them out to people too. If a casino can issue chips
based on both asset and IOU, why can't community currency banks
too?

JDS: But how hard is it to manage and maintain these trade
boosters? Ed Collom, an associate professor of sociology at the
University of Southern Maine, has studied volunteer-run programs
like Ithaca's and found that about 80% failed, chiefly because of
administrative burnout.

JCT: Guys like Ed Collom are useful in scaring people away from
these local currency lifeboats since 80% of them fail. Hearing
him say that the local Guelph LETS failed leaves people with the
impression that someone lost something, right? But a LETS can't
"fail" in that way. It's not like a tractor that can break down,
it's a set of accounts that stay undead forever.
Let's say our very small Local Employment Trading System is very
small, say 5 of us. After an initial spurt of activity, trade
falls off and our books show that Adam owes 1 Hour, Bob owes 2
Hours, Charlie owes 3 Hours while David is owed 4 Hours and Ed is
owed 2 Hours. Now try to explain how that system of accounts can
fail? It can't. Sure, nothing may happen to change those IOUs but
that doesn't mean anyone has lost anything. Ed could still call
on another and try to spend his IOUs, giving one of the
"Committed" a chance to redeem his debt of honor. (No interest)
And finally, someday, the UNILETS Resolution will be engineered
and those accounts IOUs will be spendable globally when everyone
is connected. So those accounts can never die, until one of them
dies, and in that case, the amount can be shared over the whole
database.
So whenever you hear a so-called "community currency supporter"
focusing on how these dinky (sabotaged) systems have failed, you
know they're playing right into the bankers' hands by raising
doubt over joining an only-20% successful lifeboat.

JDS: That's why many newer models, like BerkShares, are now set
up as nonprofits, complete with administrative support.

JCT: So dinky LETSystems don't fail, they idle, but having cash
(through interest on buy-ins deposited) has to help which is why
I advocate running both cash and time buy-ins for tokens.

JDS: Beyond spurring local trade, alternative currencies build
awareness about the effect of consumers' choices. "It has started
a conversation: Why local currency? Why buy local?" says Oliver
Dudok van Heel, who last fall helped launch the Lewes pound to
help a British town become more self-sustainable.

JCT: Why spend gas shipping our tomatoes to them and shipping
their tomatoes to us? Wood, wine, beef, etc.

JDS: Local currency can generate customer loyalty, but not every
business feels as though it can offer a discount like the one
built into BerkShares.

JCT: If you can't afford to lose the discount by cashing out,
I've already explained you can just spend it at full value. I
guess the businesses who don't see how to avoid the discount
won't be able to participate and should be the first ones to go
under, as the dummies should be.

JDS: "They just aren't viable for us," says Beth Parsons, whose
family owns a grocery store in Lenox, Mass. But as a consumer,
she likes the idea. Parsons recently drove to a nearby town to
buy some shoes instead of getting them online. Afterward, she
says, she passed a BerkShares sign "at the bank and thought, 'Oh,
I should've bought BerkShare bucks to save money on these.'"

JCT: Of she could have been smart enough to accept some in her
store! Har har har har.

Isn't it incredible how much disinformation is being peddled by
these community currency representatives?

And it's not as if they haven't heard John The Banking Systems
Engineer railing against the failings they keep in their systems.
Actually, Ithaca Hours use using their chips optimally, except
for being a dinky toy by only trusting their members with with a
paltry 4 Hours each, hardly enough currency to do anything big at
all.

And the third model, Timedollars, is the worst. Even though I
demonstrated that people could and should be able to command
different earning rates, especially when physical tokens let
people determine those rates themselves in a free marker, Edgar
Cahn's crew decided to keep their credits computerized so they
could impose an egalitarian wage independent of skill and demand
which has proven to be the downfall of all previous such "dog-
walkers earn the same as dentists"  networks that have no
dentists. Ithaca, with a paper currency and free market, has
dentists, Timedollars probably not.

So they covered the three basic chip models, Berkshares cash buy-
in, Ithaca Hours dinky time-buy-in and the Timedollars Wages
Police making sure that no one better gets what they're worth.

Now keep in mind that the controllers of these systems have all
been told by the Banking Systems Engineer how to remedy the
malfunctions in their models and that they've chosen to continue
operating with the flaws leaves the only conclusion that they're
morons or they're bankster moles.
And you can bet I believe that while there were few LETS
experiments going on, the banksters would have had them
infiltrated with people to cause dissension and disinterest so Ed
Collom can tell the world that 80% of these account books "fail."

http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/central/story/23-Valley-businesse\
s-to-use-new-currency-Phoenix/ns2ryIQT_UOTScVNqM96sg.cspx
By: Tim Vetscher
Email: tvetscher@...
Date: 6/23 7:09 pm

A Phoenix Bux token worth $1 dollar at participating Valley
businesses. (Tim Vetscher)  Click the play button on the video
window to the right to see the story

PHOENIX -- In light of the economic downturn, a number of
communities across the country have started printing their own
money.

It's called scrip, or local currency, and now the idea is coming
to Arizona for the very first time.

It's called Phoenix Bux and it launches July 4th.

"It's all about supporting the local businesses, if we shop
locally, it keeps the money local," said Joey Grether, who came
up with the idea for Phoenix Bux.

It's based off the concept of local currency, essentially a way
for a community to exchange services and locally produced goods.

Detroit, Ithaca, and the Berkshire region of Massachusetts all
currently use a form of local currency.

"It just keeps the money in the community rather than shopping at
a corporate chain where your money will be siphoned off to a
headquarter in some other city or potentially another country,"
said Grether.

Starting on the 4th of July, 1,600 of the coins will go into
circulation around the Phoenix area.

The tokens can be used for a dollar off at participating
businesses.

"You don't have to participate if you don't want to but if you do
you can just ask for your change in Phoenix Bux and you can use
those tokens at other participating businesses in the Valley,"
said Grether.

So far, 23 businesses have signed up to accept Phoenix Bux
including Conspire, Carly's Bistro, The Lost Leaf Bar and Gallery
and Hood Ride Bicycle Shop.

"A lot of us downtown already think locally, it's a great way to
introduce the concept to outsiders," said Derrick Pacheco, owner
of Hood Ride.

If the concept catches on, Phoenix Bux may just one day do away
with the dollar.

"We're taking a baby step," said Grether.  "Is Phoenix able to
handle local currency? We think it is."

http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/central/story/23-Valley-businesse\
s-to-use-new-currency-Phoenix/ns2ryIQT_UOTScVNqM96sg.cspx?p=Comments

KingofPaupers - June 28 2009 9:21 AM

http://johnturmel.com/ariz97.htm is the July 19 1997 Arizona
Republic article by Paul Brinkley-Rogers titled "The World's
Richest Pauper" where he wrote:

"Turmel is spreading the notion of "local employment-trading
systems in the Valley. We do not neede money but, he says,
instead would do better with a new system of vouchers issued for
labor, interest-free loans that could end poverty and hunger.
Casino chips and coins have a lot in common except that chips
never lose their value but money does."

Jct: As the ship of state finances sink, it's nice to see another
new community currency lifeboat starting up, especially in
Phoenix. But best of all, when the local currency is pegged to
the Time Standard of Money (how many dollars/hour child labor)
Hours earned locally can be intertraded with other timebanks
globally! In 1999, I paid for 39/40 nights in Europe with an IOU
for a night back in Canada worth 5 Hours. If you want to come
stay in Canada, it will cost you 5 hours worth of your Phoenix
Bux. But we'll take them in hundreds of Canadian LETS and SEL
(Quebec) and timebanks. U.N. Millennium Declaration UNILETS
Resolution C6 to governments is for a time-based currency to
restructure the global financial architecture.
See my banking systems engineering analysis at
http://youtube.com/kingofthepaupers
So sure, right now, you've only got 23 businesses and but imagine
the day when all businesses are taking advantage of interest-free
financing too.

JCT: I sent this letter to the London Free Press editor:

Jct: In London Free Press columnist Rory Leishman's June 27 2009
article at
<http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Columnists/Leishman_Rory/
2009/06/27/99\52106-sun.html>
> Saturday, 27 June, 2009
> Ontario should continue to fight menace of marijuana
> By RORY LEISHMAN
> Marijuana is not harmless. Despite the contrary claims of
> infatuated pot heads, there is overwhelming scientific evidence
> that cannabis is no less dangerous to life and health than
> alcohol and tobacco.

Jct: Take it from someone with a real science degree unlike low-tech
Rory Leishman, US statistics show alcohol kills around 40,000 a year,
tobacco kills around 400,000 a year and marijuana kills zero. Zero is
a unique number to people with real science degrees.

If you are going to let escapees from the asylum like Rory state
blatant errors in your newspaper, you should at least mention that he
couldn't take the $1 bet against my $100 to put his money where his
mouth is and show the "overwhelming scientific evidence" he is relying
on. Har har har har.

And if he isn't lying, then I bet $100 to $1 Rory Leishman is a low-
tech idiot.

John "MedPot Engineer" Turmel

Court File No: 09-A-19

                   FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

BETWEEN:

                        John C. Turmel
                                                    Applicant

                             and
                Canadian Radio-Television and
                Telecommunications Commission
                                                   Respondent



      APPLICANT REPLY TO C.R.T.C. MEMORANDUM OF FACT AND LAW

OVERVIEW:

0. The issues raised in this appeal are:

1) whether the licensee controls display of candidates'
promotional materials;
2) whether a candidate can be punished by the loss of time after
the moderator's command has been obeyed;
3) whether the Commission is derelict in its duty to regulate and
supervise air-time distribution beforehand;
4) whether the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in R. v. C.B.C.
that debates are not programs of partisan political character is
contradictory;
5) whether omitting the "all" for the Commission's policy
statements from the statute's "all rival parties and candidates"
is derelict;
6) whether the Ontario Court of Appeal's contradictory ruling
should be accepted as final, or
7) whether accepting the court ruling which corrupts the
democratic process by allowing the exclusion of candidates from
debates when they can issue new regulations that work is a
dereliction of the duty to regulate and supervise that election
debates be democratic.

PART I - FACTS

1. The Commission states:
CRTC: "2... The applicant was a candidate in the 2007 Ontario
provincial election. On 18 September 2007, he participated in a
debate program hosted by Rogers on its community channel, Rogers
TV, for six candidates of the riding of Brant. At some point
during or shortly after the applicant made his opening statement,
he was removed from the set and did not participate further in
the debate."

2. There is no "or shortly after." Both Applicant and Respondent
have and could produce the videotape of the event showing it was
"during" the opening statement and after Applicant had obeyed the
moderator's command to remove the party affiliation badge that
the moderator Tim Philp then ordered Brantford police to remove
the Applicant. The Respondent has offered no evidence to support
the suggestion that the candidate was ordered removed after his
opening statement. So, to be clear, the timeline is:
1) Abolitionist candidate dons LETS Local Employment-Trading
System badge;
2) Moderator Tim Philp interrupts to command badge be removed;
3) Candidate obeys controller of the microphone to remove badge;
4) Moderator orders police to remove candidate anyway.

3. CRTC: "3. On 24 Sep 2007, the applicant filed a complaint with
the Commission alleging that his removal from the debate amounted
to denying him an equitable share of a free-time partisan
political broadcast as he asserted was required by the
Commission's regulations and requesting that the Commission take
action."
"4. Rogers responded to the applicant's complaint on 27 Sep 2007
and explained its reasons for why the applicant was removed from
the debate program. Rogers alleged that the applicant had taken
issue with a request to remove a badge he was wearing in
violation of rules set by Rogers for the debate regarding the
display of candidates' promotional material on the production
set."

4. The Commission does crystallize the Issue #1 herein as whether
debate organizers on our public airwaves may control the display
of "candidates' promotional material." Applicant has detailed how
all my promotional materials were used in previous elections to
help me explain my programs and that it was in order to impair
only my presentation that moderator Tim Philp banned all
candidates' promotional materials since the Commission has given
him the power to make up any rules he wishes candidates obey in
order to receive their fair share of the air-time pie.

5. CRTC: "Subsequently, according to Rogers, the applicant
interrupted a fellow candidate, at which point the moderator had
the applicant removed from the set."

6. This doesn't fit into the timeline of 1) applicant illegally
donning his party affiliation badge, 2) moderator demanding it be
removed, 3) Applicant obeying the omni-potent controller of the
microphone and removing the illegal party identification, 4)
debate fuhrer ordering police to remove candidate anyway. An
"interruption of another candidate" just does not fit in. It only
fits if the moderator must have ruled that I had to be punished
for my transgression against his etched-in-stone rules by losing
the rest of the opening statement, thus making my continuation of
my opening statement an interruption of the next candidate in his
opinion. Of course, Fuhrer Philp does not say he is punishing me
by denying me the remainder of my opening statement. Applicant
will argue that moderator does not have the authority to deny
candidate equitable time in punishment for violation of the rules
dictated by them media debate organizers. (Issue #2)

7. CRTC: "5. On 1 Oct 2007, the applicant wrote again to the
Commission requesting it compel Rogers to give the applicant an
equitable share of time before election day."

8. The CRTC has both a regulatory responsibility to enact and
supervisory responsibility to ensure a democratic election
influence by the greatest influence of all, electronic media.
Having no process to prevent undemocratic distributions shows the
Commission's failure to regulate and supervise that the time pie
be shared fairly. If one can figure out the distribution of a
cherry pie is unfair before the pie is eaten, the Commission is
derelict in being unable to judge that the distribution of the
time-pie is inequitable before it is allocated on an inequitable
basis to not all rival candidates. (Issue #3)

9. CRTC: "7... On 8 Apr 2009, the Commission issued Broadcasting
Decision CRTC 2009-184 (the "Decision") dismissing the
applicant's complaint. Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2009-184
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2009/2009-184.htm
"8. In the Decision, the Commission noted that it considered the
applicant's request that the Commission compel Rogers to provide
him with an equitable share of the time in the election debate
program was now moot given that the election had already taken
place."

10. This is only because of the Commission's failure to regulate
and supervise that the media's allocation of the time pie before
the event.

11. CRTC: "10. The Commission noted that in Public Notice 1995-
44, it stated that, pursuant to the Ontario Court of Appeal's
decision in R. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (1993), the
Commission's regulations regarding the equitable allocation of
time did not apply to election debate programs because they are
not programs of a "partisan political character."

12. The Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that debates do not
have to be shared equitably like other broadcasts of partisan
political character because debates are not programs of partisan
political character. This contradiction rationalizing the
exclusion of some candidates from Canada's democratic process is
certainly being challenged herein. (Issue #4)

13. CRTC: "The Commission further noted that it had reiterated
this statement in Broadcasting Circular 2007-5 issued in
connection with the 2007 Ontario provincial election."

14. In fulfilling their responsibility to ensure a democratic use
of the national airwaves, the Respondent made sure to alert the
media that the Ontario Court of Appeal has okayed excluding any
candidate they want without reason if they merely called it a
debate.

15. CRTC: "11. The Commission considered that, in light of its
determinations in Public Notice 1995-44, it was within Rogers'
editorial discretion to exclude participants from an election
debate program..."

16. Yes, Rogers did call it a debate and the Commission considers
it is within Rogers editorial discretion to exclude any candidate
they want from a democratic debate program. So not only is the
issue raised of whether the licensee has absolute control not
only over candidates' promotional materials but over candidates'
participation too.

17. CRTC: "who were not complying with the rules and format
Rogers had set for the program."

18. Of course, if Rogers may exclude any candidate at their total
editorial discretion because they call it a debate, it's a bonus
to hide such absolute control over participation if they can also
make up rules offensive enough to prompt some candidates to
rebel, especially those whom the changes in format are intended
to disfavor. Of course, since the Commission has omitted to
mention that Applicant had obeyed the fuhrer's order before being
ejected, the Commission must therefore fail to see that the issue
herein is not breaking Big Brother's Rules, it's about being
punished after obeying; and about how much a candidate can be
punished by loss of air-time after he has already obeyed.

19. CRTC: "12. As a result of these considerations, the
Commission determined that Rogers did not breach subsection 27(4)
of the Broadcasting Regulations and accordingly dismissed the
Applicant's complaint."

20. "Paragraph 10(1)(e) of the Broadcasting Act empowers the
Commission to make regulations "respecting the proportion of time
that may be devoted to the broadcasting of programs, including
advertisement or announcements, of a partisan political character
and the assignment of that time on an equitable basis to
political parties and candidates.

21. And once the Court of Appeal had ruled that the present
regulations did not ensure that the time devoted to the
broadcasting of programs of a partisan political character was
share on an equitable basis by political parties and candidates,
the Commission is correct in mentioning that the Broadcasting Act
empowers it to make better regulations to effect the intent that
the time devoted to the broadcasting of programs of a partisan
political character was share on an equitable basis by all
political parties and candidates, Of course, it doesn't help that
in the 1980s and 1990s, the legislation said: "all rival parties
and candidates." Applicant doubts that Parliament dropped the
word "all" and suggests that the Commission chose to omit it in
their policy statements. Of course, if Parliament has dropped the
"all" from "all parties and candidates," then that explains why
the O.C.A. would rule that the media can now exclude any
candidate they want from debates since they don't have to have
them on at all. But Applicant alleges that it is an omission of
the word by the Commission and not a deletion by Parliament. If
Parliament did remove the "all," I am asking this Court to order
them to put it back in. (Issue #5)

22. CRTC: "14. Under this provision, the Commission has enacted
several regulations requiring that, during an election period,
broadcasters allocate time for broadcasting programs,
advertisements or announcements or a "partisan political
character" on an equitable basis to accredited political parties
and rival candidates in the election."
"15. On 2 Sep 1998, the Commission issued A Policy with Respect
to Election Campaign Broadcasting, Public Notice CRTC 1988-142.
The Public Notice set out the Commission's position regarding
various aspects of election period broadcasting. With respect to
debate programs held during an election, the Commission noted
that it may be impractical to include all rival parties and
candidates in one program. However, the Commission stated that if
this type of broadcast takes place, all parties and candidates
should be accommodated, even if doing so requires that more than
one program be broadcast.

23. I will accept this Commission statement as the rationale for
why I asked that I be accommodated after the event in obtaining
an equitable share of the broadcast pie even if doing so required
that more than one program be broadcast or appended.

24. CRTC: "16. On 15 Mar 1995, the Commission issued Public
Notice CRTC 1995-44 which revised its policy set out in Public
Notice CRTC 1988-142 with respect to election debate programs.
The Commission noted that the Ontario Court of Appeal had ruled
in R. v. C.B.C. that debates were not covered by the Commission's
regulations regarding the equitable allocation of time during
election periods."

25. The Commission to ensure democratic election broadcasting is
peddling this judicial rationalization for why election
broadcasts do not have to be shared equitably among all rival
political candidates anymore. Yet it has the duty to come up with
regulations that work and to supervise that democracy works, not
accept a court ruling rationalizing candidate exclusion as still
being democratic. The CRTC is not limited by the court's
contradictory decision on its first bad efforts to ensure
democracy and can always try to make better policy a second time.
That's why I am challenging not only the O.C.A. ruling that
debates featuring partisan political opinions are not partisan
political programming (Issue #6) but also that the CRTC is not
limited by it and can enact new regulations trying to be more
effective at ensuring democracy again. After all, sharing a pie
isn't such a complicated deal. (Issue #7)

26. CRTC: "In light of this decision, the Commission stated that
it would no longer require that debate programs feature all rival
parties and candidates in one or more program."

27. Instead of issuing new regulations so that debate programs
feature all rival candidates, the Commission makes it official by
accepting the court ruling that excluding candidates from debates
is still democratic, a complete dereliction of the duty to
regulate the democratic integrity of our election broadcasting.

28. CRTC: "21. The applicant has failed to point to an error in
law or jurisdiction made by the Commission in the decision. The
applicant's argument - that Rogers did not have sufficient
justification to remove him from the election debate program - is
premised on the notion that he was entitled to an equitable share
in the debate program pursuant to ss.27(4). However, in the
Decision, the Commission reiterated that subsection 27(4) does
not apply to debate programs because they are not programs of a
"partisan political character." The Commission notes that the
application does not seek to contest this conclusion.

29: Applicant notes that there is now no choice but to.

30. CRTC: "As such, the applicant's argument about the
sufficiency of Rogers' reasons for ejecting him from the debate
and does not point to an error of law or jurisdiction by the
Commission."

31. After I had obeyed, Rogers did not have valid reasons for
ejecting me from the debate.
I challenge this because the CRTC has stated I must obey any
rules the ruler makes up and I say the organizers' control does
not extend to candidates promotional materials.

32. CRTC: "22. Furthermore, in determining that ss.27(4) does not
apply to election debate programs, the Commission was merely
following existing judicial precedent as well as its own public
notices."

33. The Commission is not bound to follow the existing judicial
precedent denying all candidates and equitable share of the
debate time when it has the power to re-regulate new rules so the
media share out the time pie democratically.

34. CRTC: "23. In R. v. CBC, the Ontario Court of Appeal
established clearly that election debates do not constitute
programs of "partisan political character" within the meaning of
the Commission's regulations since they present all different
political viewpoints.

35. Applicant could agree had the Court said "since they present
all different political viewpoints." Of course, debates with
partisan political opinions from all candidates do not exert
unfair partisan political influence but debates with only some
candidates do exert unfair influence and cannot be said to not be
of partisan political character.

36. CRTC: "The Court stated that "while the statements by each of
the participants are undoubtedly partisan, the program itself is
clearly not."

37. This is only true when all different political viewpoints are
presented. Sadly, this seems typical of judicial thinking: since
debate programs with all candidates aren't unfair, shows without
all candidates aren't unfair either.

38. CRTC: "24. As a result of the Ontario Court of Appeal's
decision, the Commission issued Public Notice 1995-44 which
stated it would no longer require that debate programs feature
all rival parties and candidates in one or more programs."

39: Rather than issue new regulations so debate programs feature
all rival parties and candidates in one or more programs, the
Commission remains derelict in accepting that debate programs no
longer feature all rival parties and candidates in one or more
programs. The Commission accepting undemocratic exclusions
because of a contradictory court ruling when it has the power to
re-regulate a fair debate is a dereliction of the Commission's
duty to regulate and ensure democratic allocation of broadcast
time. Sure, the Courts may have ordered that elections debates be
unfair, but it's still the Commission's duty to get around such
flawed decisions to ensure the election debates be fair.

40. The Commission has the responsibility to ensure democratic
fairness and to say it cannot because the courts have ordered
that debates be unfair is silly when they can write new policy
get around the court's corruption of the democratic integrity of
the Canadian election process. They have the power to compel the
media to be fair and that they rely on an irrational court
judgment to thwart their own mission says it all, the ultimate
dereliction of duty.

41. On all grounds, Applicant seeks leave to appeal the decision
of the Commission ruling that the equitableness subsection 27(4)
does not apply to debate programs because they are not programs
of a "partisan political character."

Dated at Brantford on Monday June 15, 2009




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

To: Regan Morris, Legal Counsel
Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission
Central Building, Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere
1 Promenade du Portage Gatineau Quebec J8X 4B1
Tel/fax: 819-953-5204/0589
55 St. Clair St. W. #624, Toronto

JCT: On May 27, 2009, Real Martin was sent by John KromKamp,
Senior Legal Officer, Appeal Scheduling Unit for the Ontario
Court of Appeal a :

JK: NOTICE OF HEARING

The Court Reporter's Certificate indicating that you have ordered
copies of the transcript required in the above titled proceedings
has not been filed in accordance with the Criminal Appeal Rules
and the court's Practice Direction on the Timely Hearing of
Criminal Appeals dated Feb 18 2003.

JCT: James Turner has submitted the Court Reporter's Certificate
and is still waiting for the required transcript.

JK: Take notice that the court has directed that this appeal be
scheduled for hearing in the Status Court of the Court of Appeal
for Ontario on: Wednesday June 17 2009 at 9am.

A Court Reporter's Certificate may be filed in person at the
Court of Appeal office or faxed to 416-327-5032 prior to the
hearing scheduled above. Unless the required certificate has been
filed, the presiding justice may direct that the matter be placed
before a purge court to be dismissed as an abandoned appeal or
make such other order as the Justice deems appropriate for the
receipt or preparation of materials required for the timely
hearing of the appeal.

Filing of the required certificate releases the parties from
attending the hearing.

If personal attendance is not possible, alternate arrangements
may be made to conduct the Status Court hearing by conference
call by contacting the Appeals Scheduling Unit by fax at 416-327-
6256.

Dated Wednesday June May 27 2009.
John Kromkamp
Cc: Kenneth L. Campbell, 720 Bay St. Toronto, M5G 2K1

JCT: As Real Martin's agent since his bust in the Parker Period
of invalidity in 2003, I'm organizing his appeal so I faxed:

From: John C. Turmel, B.Eng.,
Friday June 12 2009

Appeals Scheduling Unit
Court of Appeal for Ontario,
130 Queen Street West,
Toronto, Ontario M5H 2N5,
Tel/fax: 416-327-5020/5032

Re: Hearing June 17 2009 for Real Martin

I am the agent for Real Martin in charge of preparing his appeal
documents.

The court has directed that this appeal be scheduled for hearing
in the Status Court of the Court of Appeal for Ontario on June 17
regarding failure to file the Court Reporter's Certificate.

Appellant, in seeking an extension of time for being 1 day late,
sought to dispense with the transcripts since this is a question
of pure law and the transcripts are not necessary.

Before Appellant does seek a Court Reporter's Certificate from
the Cochrane Courthouse 300km away, Appellant once again asks the
court to dispense with the transcript.

Appellant cannot come to Toronto for the hearing and would like
to conduct the hearing by conference call. Appellant lives
without electricity or phone and will have to take the conference
call at a friend's at 905-362-7145. Appellant speaks almost no
English and would prefer that the hearing be conducted in French.

The only issue is whether the transcript can be dispensed with
before Appellant's factum can be filed.

Arrangements to ascertain the conference call may be made by
contacting agent John Turmel at 519-753-0645.
Yours truly,
John Turmel

Agent for Real Martin
RR1 Box 20  Coppell, ON, P0L 1N0
---

JCT: So this is what happens when you have a delay in the
preparation of your appeal. You explain to a Status Court judge
what the problem is and if it's not a good enough reason, he
passes it over to the required 3 judges of the Purge Court for it
to be dismissed as abandoned for lack of material.

If the Justice insists, Real will have to go to Cochrane
Courthouse 300km away from Coppell and put a down payment down on
ordering the transcript which he's not going to be referring to
anyway. But that's all it takes to get the Real Martin appeal
back on track: a Court Reporter's Certificate that he's ordered
the transcript.
Then both sides file their factum, the Appellant files a
Certificate of Perfection to book an appeal date.

Many who were following our "Big Five" appeals for Parker, Turmel
& Paquette" in 2003 will remember the Serendipity story where the
Crown couldn't get their Lederman appeal hearing scheduled before
the 6 months ran out without our Certificate of Perfection. It
was serendipitous that the Crown suddenly refused to pick up the
tab when I had promised Justice Charron that we'd produce them.
Except we couldn't afford the $350 filing fee so we couldn't file
it and the Crown didn't get their hearing scheduled and had to
ask Carthy J. for an extension of time that he later denied
because my chortling at them at my web site wasn't good enough
reason for it. Har har har. What fun that was. Search for
Serendipity around early to mid 2003.

This is important because James Turner is being railroaded by the
same Court of Appeal with the same Certificate of Perfection
issue. He's been waiting for the transcript that the Court of
Appeal Registry insists upon after the Ottawa Office didn't do it
right the first time so he can send it in with his Factum. Then
after the Crown files their factum, he files the Certificates of
Perfection and the hearing gets booked.

It seems the Crown found a back-room way of getting around the
need to have a Certificate of Perfection before you can schedule
an appeal that had been problematic back in 2003 and applies to
Real's appeal too because James suddenly received notice that his
appeal was being heard with the required transcript, without
either factum and without the Certificate of Perfection! Here is
the Turner correspondence leading up to the back-room side-step
of the Court of Appeal rules:

>Court of Appeal for Ontario Registrar Office
>April 1 2009

Dear Mr. Turner:
Re: C49904 R. v. James Turner

Our office is in receipt of your material for the appeal noted in
the line above. The transcripts could not be filed for the
following reasons:
1) It is missing the court reporter's signature;
2) We need 3 copies of the transcript, not 1; and
3) the front and back covers should be in red;
4) There was no affidavit of service provided with the
transcripts. If you have further inquiries, please contact us at
the number below. Thank you. Yours truly,  Huguette Thompson
--

JCT: Then suddenly, this letter from the Crown Attorney's office:

>Public Prosecution Toronto
>May 29 2009
>C49904

HEARING: Tuesday June 16 2009 - 9am
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Court House, 5 Court Street Kingston Ontario

Please be advised that your appeal has been listed for hearing on
June 16 200 as noted above. Endorsed herewith please find a copy
of the Appeal Book we have prepared in this matter. Please note
that you are responsible for making your own transportation
arrangements to your scheduled hearing.
Kelly Low, Sr. Paralegal
--

>Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 10:16:37 -0400
>From: jimt155@... <James Turner>
>To: coa.e-file@...
>Subject: Re C49904

To Hugutte Thompson.
Re c49904 R v James Turner

Hello as to your letter dated April 1st stating that you had to
return the transcripts to me due to multible mistakes, I'm still
awaiting transcripts but the reporter is seriously ill and that
is causing the delay.
Once I receive them I wish to file a factum before any hearing
date can be set and heard and I also request that my appeal be
heard in Toronto.

On June 1st I received my appeal book from the crown's office 130
King street Toronto and a letter stating my appeal date has been
scheduled for june 16 in Kingston. But until I receive my
transcripts I can't file my factum and again my appeal was
accepted in toronto and that is where I wish to be heard as my
agent John Turmel resides near Toronto and it would be harder for
him to commute to Kingston to speak on my be half so my request
at this time is for the June 16 date to be put off pending my
transcripts and the filing of my factum and that my case be heard
in Toronto.
As to your previous instructions letter of April is attached also
the letter with from the crown dated May 29.
James.Turner
--

>From: jimt155@...
>To: kellylow@...
>Subject: letter attached
>Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 11:49:50 -0400

Hello kelly, attached is the letter that I got dated april 1st
and that's why I haven't filed my factum I figured I could file
my factum at the same time as I submitted the transcripts that I
am waiting for. That's why june 16 is a little sudden. Thanks
Jim.T
--

JCT: Since James sent a copy to the Registrar, the Crown wrote
back:

> From: mmcguire@...
> Subject: James Turner appeal C49904
> Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 15:10:48 -0400
> To: Hai-Anh.Nguyen@...
> CC: jimt155@...
>
CR: Ms. Nguyen,
Thank you for forwarding a copy of Mr. Turner's email to our
office. The Crown is opposed to the adjournment requested by Mr.
Turner. The Appeal Book is complete and contains all the material
required for the hearing of this appeal. I have confirmed with
Crown counsel on the application below that there was no evidence
heard in the court below, and therefore the transcript Mr. Turner
is waiting for would simply be submissions. Submissions are not
normally part of the required transcripts for an appeal, unless
otherwise ordered by the court.

JCT: Hey, it wasn't James who said the transcripts were required,
it was the Registrar. Now the Crown is telling the Registrar how
to do their job?

CR; Mr. Turner filed his notice of appeal more than four months ago.
He has had sufficient time to prepare a factum, had he any
serious intent to do so. In the court below, he simply copied and
submitted materials (including a factum) that had been used by
John Turmel in another case.

JCT: Sure, he's going to be playing the same Aces as played by
John Turmel, maybe better?

Those materials are contained in the Appeal Book that has been
filed. Mr. Turner also asked that his appeal be moved to Toronto
in order for his "agent", John Turmel to appear and speak on his
behalf. Mr. Turmel is not licenced by the LSUC and, unless
otherwise excepted under the Law Society Act, therefore cannot
provide legal services in the Province of Ontario.
While we have no preference as to whether this appeal is heard in
Toronto or in Kingston, I understand that the Toronto list this
month is very lengthy and that this matter can more conveniently
be heard in Kingston.
It is of some importance that this appeal not be delayed. Mr.
Turner's charges were laid in October 2006, and his preliminary
inquiry has twice been adjourned. The preliminary inquiry is now
scheduled for June 26, 2009. It would therefore be preferable if
the appeal was heard on June 16, as scheduled. Thank you,
Maureen J. McGuire
Crown Counsel, Public Prosecution Service of Canada
--

>Monday, June 8, 2009 10:32 AM
>From: "Jim T" <jimt155@...>
>To: "johnturmel@..." <johnturmel@...>

Hi John its Justice Rosenberg and the material has been sent up
to him already so she said get it in as soon as possible.
--

JCT: So I wrote an explanation of James' objections to going to
appeal without transcript, facta or Certificate of Perfection:

>Subject: RE: attention Hyann Re C49904
>Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 14:44:53 -0400
>From: COA.E-file@...
>To: jimt155@...
Dear Mr. Turner,
This is to confirm receipt of your correspondence as sent below.
Regards, Hai-Anh Nguyen

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim T [mailto:jimt155@...]
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 2:40 PM
To: JUS-G-MAG-Judicial COA E-file
Subject: attention Hyann Re C49904

Court File No. C49904
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Between:
JAMES TURNER
Appellant-Accused
and
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent/Plaintiff

June 8, 2009
Justice Rosenberg,
Ontario Court of Appeal

The correspondence in the court file should show that the
transcript was rejected by the Court of Appeal Registry as
improperly prepared by the Ottawa Court Reporter.

Screw-ups in their office have delayed production of an
acceptable transcript, no facta have yet been filed, and there
should not be a Certificate of Completion.

The Crown tells me that because because I am self-represented,
the Certificate of Completion can be skipped. But in the 2003
appeals of Terry Parker or John Turmel & Marc Paquette, the
hearings could not be booked without Certificates of Completion
and they were self-represented too.

The Crown tells me that my hearing is now a fait accomplit which
can only be cancelled by Order of a judge to whom I am have not
been given an opportunity to address with my concerns.

Appellant submits that the appointment for the appeal is an
irregularity without a Certificate of Completion

Appellant seeks an Order quashing the hearing date until all
facta have been filed and a Certificate of Completion has been
filed upon perfection of the appeal.

Appellant seeks an explanation of how the Crown obtained a
hearing date for an as-yet-incomplete appeal without a
Certificate of Completion?
Jim Turner Ottawa

Cc: mmcguire@...
Hai-Anh.Nguyen@...
--

> Subject: C49904 - R. v. Turner, James
> Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 11:41:42 -0400
> From: Hai-Anh.Nguyen@...
> To: jimt155@...
> To: mmcguire@...; jimt155@...
>
Dear Ms. McGuire and Mr. Turner,

After reviewing letters received from both parties regarding Mr.
Turner's request to adjourn the hearing date of above-noted
appeal, Justice MacPherson, the president of the panel has
directed that the request for an adjournment is refused. However,
it can be raised again in front of the full panel at the hearing
in Kingston on June 16, 2009.
Mr. Turner, Justice MacPherson has approved your request to be
allowed a tape recorder in court to supplement your notes.
Please kindly confirm receipt of this message. Regards,
Hai-Anh Nguyen, Appeal Scheduling Unit Officer
Court of Appeal for Ontario T: (416) 327-5028
--

So Justice Macpherson has been made aware that it's not James'
fault that the transcript the Registrar insists upon are not
readied by the Ottawa Court Reporter, he knows James wants to
file a factum, and that the appeal somehow got filed without
Certificate of Perfection despite pointing out how the Crown
couldn't file without the certificate back in 2003 and still he
insists on making James show up next week Tuesday June 16 in
Kingston for the unfinished and illegitimate appeal.

Notice the judge did not explain how the Crown got around the
rules though saying he said James could ask the whole panel
again. If there is a valid answer, why couldn't he have given it?
That's why it sounds like he's going to be rail-roaded by the
back-room fix.

And of course, James can ask why Real Martin is being heard by
Status Court in Toronto for not filing his transcript and why
Real is being treated differently. Note they did not just skip
the transcripts and schedule the appeal, they are having the
Status court look into the problem of transcripts.

Anyway, the contradiction between the Crown not being able to
book in 2003 without a Certificate of Perfection, and the Crown
how finding a back-room method to book the hearing without a
Certificate of Perfection, as well as the difference in how
James's transcript problem was treated differently from Real's
transcript problem, and the lack of factums being filed, makes
this one of the most unusual procedures in recent times.

Interesting that I was expecting them to consolidate James' and
Real's appeals together since they're based on the identical
Aces and instead the improperly rush ahead with one while the
other is still coming up on the normal track later.

So it seems the Crown has found a back-room way of skipping not
only Certificates of Perfection but transcripts and facta. This
is going to be one wild appeal though James says they've produced
a 350 page Appeal Book full of proofs that James is using the
same Aces Turmel's already lost with before courts who did not
see!! Isn't it interesting how the Crown is stuck without a
transcript, Appellant and Respondent Facta and the Certificate of
Perfection in Real Martin's appeal but managed to skip it all in
the case of James Turner's appeal?

Of course, James must argue that Turmel is not a trained lawyer
and so maybe he didn't explain the Aces in the same right way
that James is going to try. And it's the perfect time to use the
"many judges not seeing doesn't mean all judges cannot see" barb
and point out that one court looking in the right place to see
the problem is more righteous than 100 courts who did not see
because they're were looking in 100 wrong places. Answer this
every time they point out that the other courts did not see what
Turmel was saying.

Finally James, the first point you must raise is that it takes a
5-judge panel to have the jurisdiction necessary to contradict
the Hitzig decision and you don't have to ask the Chief Justice
to schedule the hearing before 5-judges before you file your
Certificate of Perfection.

There is absolutely nothing I can do to help you if they're going
to railroad you so it's no use that I go to Kingston with you. Of
course, it doesn't really matter since you're going to take your
issue higher anyway if you're railroaded out of there. This is
just going to let you bring along the stink of their back-room
shenanigans with your normal arguments seeking leave to appeal
against the denial of prohibition of your marijuana charges.

>Health Canada card
>Friday, June 12, 2009 3:26 PM
>From: "ricklacanne" <ricklacanne@...>
>To: johnturmel@...

Hello John how is it going down there
i am Rick in north Quebec we talk on phone couple time me you and
Marc
ok to make it short i finaly got my exemtion card 28 g like my
Doc ask but had to send second B form and told them after that 30
days...
and i got it cause i call Daneault and i told my story to the
secretary and it was going to b 30 days the next saturday it was
the 27.
i call and day after mr Bergeron call me back and told me he was
sending it now so i got it couple day late but i have it now and
i am waiting for my designate grower to send back new form my
card renew is around 15 august so for 2 month all his trouble.
They are so stupid but have no choice my R form is done no
problem with my Doc.
Only thing is he penalise me and make me go see him every month
to pass my medical insurance card even if i told him i have to
move get another place to stay to mutch trouble with the addict i
live now that life he dont care i have to pay my bill so i am
still at the mercy off the fucking system here in Quebec.
Since 1992 i fight with gov agency for my work accident comp.
i am supposed to pass rest of my life in a electric wheelschair
still do not have it.
So here its more easy to kill than having work accident cause in
Quebec do murder go 10 years in jail after 1 year on condition
then 5 more years for Pardon no more criminal record so in all it
take 16 to 17 years to be clean for murder and me going on my 19
years and still have to fight for my medical need + medical mj so
for now i am starting to b so frustrated at them some time but
have to think of anything else ...cause its not good for me
Peace & Love 4 ever my friend ;-)

JCT: At least the 30 day ultimatum worked without me having to
write up a judicial review of their decision to challenge your
doctor's prescription behind the scenes. It always makes it
doubly nice to win through intimidation rather than law.

JCT: This is the reply of the Canadian Radio-Television and
Telecommunications Commission to my complaint about being ejected
by police from a debate hosted by Rogers after moderator Fuhrer
Philp had made me remove my party badge.

Court File No: 09-A-19

                   FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

BETWEEN:

                        John C. Turmel
                                                    Applicant

                             and
                Canadian Radio-Television and
                Telecommunications Commission
                                                   Respondent



                   AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT A. MORIN
                (solemnly affirmed on May 28 2009)


I, Robert A Morin, Secretary General of the Canadian Radio-
Television and Telecommunications Commission ("Commission") of
the City of Ottawa, solemnly affirm:

1. I am the Secretary General of the Commission. As such, I have
knowledge of matters to which I depose below.

2. I solemnly affirm this affidavit in support of the
Commission's response to the application of John Turmel for leave
to appeal the Broadcasting Decision CRTC-2009-184 of the
Commission.

3. The Commission's policy with regard to election campaign
broadcasting is found in Public Notice CRTC 1982-142. This
document is attached as Exhibit A to this affidavit.

4. The Commission's policy with regard to election debate
programs is found in Public Notice CRTC-1995-44. This document is
attached as Exhibit B to this affidavit.

5. The guidelines that were issued to all licensees of
broadcasting undertakings serving the province of Ontario
concerning the Ontario provincial election that took place on 10
October 2007 is found in Broadcasting Circular CRTC 2007-5. This
document is attached as Exhibit C to this affidavit.

Solemnly affirmed bon May 28 2009.
Robert A. Morin

JCT: Wow, I never expected an affidavit by the Secretary General.

            MEMORANDUM OF FACT AND LAW OF THE CANADIAN
        RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PART I - FACTS

1. The applicant, John Turmel, has sought leave to appeal
Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2009-184, dated 8 April 2009 of the
Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (the
"Commission"), which dismissed the applicant's complaint relating
to an election debate program hosted by Rogers Cable
Communications Inc (Rogers) during the 2007 Ontario provincial
election.

A. History of the applicant's complaint

2. The applicant was a candidate in the 2007 Ontario provincial
election. On 18 September 2007, he participated in a debate
program hosted by Rogers on its community channel, Rogers TV, for
six candidates of the riding of Brant. At some point during or
shortly after the applicant made his opening statement, he was
removed from the set and did not participate further in the
debate.

JCT: They know it was during so why bring up after?

3. On 24 Sep 2007, the applicant filed a complaint with the
Commission alleging that his removal from the debate amounted to
denying him an equitable share of a free-time partisan political
broadcast as he asserted was required by the Commission's
regulations and requesting that the Commission take action.

4. Rogers responded to the applicant's complaint on 27 Sep 2007
and explained its reasons for why the applicant was removed from
the debate program. Rogers alleged that the applicant had taken
issue with a request to remove a badge he was wearing in
violation of rules set by Rogers for the debate regarding the
display of candidates' promotional material on the production
set.

JCT:  Notice how they don't mention that I had obeyed and taken
it off before the decision to have police remove me. But they do
crystallize the issue: they want control over the display of
"candidates' promotional material." Their own words from now on.
That's the crux issue I'm challenging. Fuhrer Philp didn't like
that I had all these great exhibits and props do to a great show
so he banned them to impair only one "candidate's promotional
material."

Subsequently, according to Rogers, the applicant interrupted a
fellow candidate, at which point the moderator had the applicant
removed from the set.

JCT: Of course, after the moderator had interrupted me and I had
obeyed, it was still my time and I was interrupting no one. Since
I did mention this already, there must be a reason they're
purposely leaving it out.

5. On 1 Oct 2007, the applicant wrote again to the Commission
requesting it compel Rogers to give the applicant an equitable
share of time before election day.

6. On 4 Oct 2007, the applicant brought an application for
judicial review against the Commission. The applicant's request
for interlocutory relief was dismissed by Decary J.A. on 5 Nov
2007. The application for judicial review was dismissed by the
Federal  Court of Appeal on 17 Dec 2008 on the grounds that the
Commission had not rendered a decision in relation to the
applicant's complaint which could be subject of a judicial review
or against which relief could be sought.

7. On 26 Jan 2009, the applicant requested that the Commission
render a decision with respect to his complaint. On 8 Apr 2009,
the Commission issued Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2009-184 (the
"Decision") dismissing the applicant's complaint.

B. Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2009-184
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2009/2009-184.htm

8. In the Decision, the Commission noted that it considered the
applicant's request that the Commission compel Rogers to provide
him with an equitable share of the time in the election debate
program was now moot given that the election had already taken
place.

JCT: Because the Commission failed to act on time to compel them
to let me tape my 22-minute share so they could add it to the
other broadcast, is is now too late and getting me my fair share
before the election is now moot. Because the Commission failed to
act on time.

9. The Commission considered that the remaining issue raised by
the applicant's complaint was whether Rogers had breached the
Commission's regulations regarding the equitable allocation of
time for programs of a partisan political character during an
election period. The Commission noted that the provision that
applied to Rogers in this case was subsection 27(4) of the
Broadcasting Distribution Regulations, but that similar wording
exists in other regulations governing radio, television and
specialty services.

10. The Commission noted that in Public Notice 1995-44, it stated
that, pursuant to the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in R. v.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (1993), the Commission's
regulations regarding the equitable allocation of time did not
apply to election debate programs because they are not programs
of a "partisan political character."

JCT: You have to admit that this is pretty funny. They're going
to rationalize how excluding some candidates is still democratic!
The Ontario Court of Appeal, the guys who gave us the Hitzig
Resurrection when Parliament wouldn't do it that tricked 9,000
known Canadian epileptics to death in the past 6 years, they said
the Pitt decision on a Criminal matter that the Government had
not complied with the Parker Court's ruling was properly set
aside as in Civil Court by an peer judge as as Default Judgment
because there had been improper service when Superior Courts can
dispense with service altogether. And so they're going to have
the chance to explain how excluded candidates are still getting
an equitable share of the debate. Har har har har. Who are these
"winners?" Dubin, McKinlay, Carthy.

We met Carthy J.A. when he refused the Crown's extension of time
to appeal the Lederman decision because, instead of explaining
why it would unleash dangerous marijuana users on society, they
complained that Turmel's web site was laughing at their
predicament. He said being chortled at isn't reason enough!
That's why they had to mail out the pot by July 9 and I had a
countdown while being laughed at. Then Anne McLellan announced
they were sending out the pot!

And I've crossed words with Justice Dubin many times in the past.
He's the one who told the allergic lady being evicted in Smiths
Falls in 1983 that courts weren't a social service to fend off
her bankers. See my http://johnturmel.com/prspol83

830603Tu
Ottawa Citizen, CP
Challenge to eviction rejected
After an unsuccessful eviction challenge in a Toronto courtroom
Monday, Jean Metcalfe is waiting for the sheriff to force her
from her home. The sheriff will evict Metcalfe when he receives
instructions to do so from Paul Howard. Howard said he is
awaiting word from the bank and said eviction should take place
soon.
Bank-fighter John Turmel, who has been helping her throughout a
series of court battles, says he'll attempt to go before the SCC
this week to get a stay of the eviction notice. She may be
evicted before then, however.
While in Toronto, Metcalfe told Ontario Supreme Court justices
they were "committing murder" by refusing to hear her plea
against eviction. She told Mr. Justice Charles Dubin, head of a
panel of three motion court judges, that she would die if she is
turned out on the streets. Dubin said the matter had been fully
litigated and was completely out of his hands. "You have been to
almost every court in the country," he said. Metcalfe, who was
not represented by a lawyer, kept talking as Dubin tried to
explain he could do nothing and that the decision by the
Divisional Court rejecting her application was final litigation.
Finally, as Metcalfe kept saying she had nowhere to go and would
die, Dubin said: "This a court of law, not a social agency." As
she stalked from the court, Metcalfe shouted back through the
open door: "You're committing murder."

JCT: And searching my private unpublished journals for McKinlay,
I found this interesting tidbit, she was associated with Jean
Metcalfe's case too!

871021We
PAPER = Globe & Mail, Appeal court gets second woman judge
NEWS = Madam Justice Hilda McKinlay officially became the second
woman to sit on the Ontario Court of Appeal. A member of the SCO
since 1983, she joins the 18-member court that has been all-male
since Justice Bertha Wilson was appointed to the SCC.
Jct: She was the lady lawyer who handled Jean Metcalfe's eviction
at Osgoode Hall in 1982 for the Bank of Montreal. It's funny how
people who have tangled with me get promoted quickly. I'll be
talking about more powerful people which should interest the
others.

JCT: So now let's see what the Bank Judge and Bank Lawyer and
Justice Carthy came up with to say that excluding candidates is
still equitable.

The Commission further noted that it had reiterated this
statement in Broadcasting Circular 2007-5 issued in connection
with the 2007 Ontario provincial election.

JCT: Right, in doing their job of ensuring a democratic election,
the Commission made sure to alert the media that the O.C.A. had
okayed their excluding anyone they wanted if they called it a
debate. Har har har har. Convicted without knowing it. Nyuk nyuk.

11. The Commission considered that, in light of its
determinations in Public Notice 1995-44, it was within Rogers'
editorial discretion to exclude participants from an election
debate program...

JCT: Yes we know the court said they could exclude candidates
from debate programs.

who were not complying with the rules and format Rogers had set
for the program.

JCT: Of course, if they can short out anyone they want, they can
exclude anyone they want for any reason they may make up: for
instance, they wanted me to go on the show denuded. I didn't obey
the rules so I can be excluded. Actually, I did obey the rules
and was excluded. So they're going to have rely on the blanket
right to exclude anyone from a debate because the Ontario Court
of Appeal Justices Dubin, McKinlay and Carthy said debates are
not partisan and don't have to be shared equitably.

12. As a result of these considerations, the Commission
determined that Rogers did not breach subsection 27(4) of the
Broadcasting Regulations and accordingly dismissed the
Applicant's complaint.

C. Regulatory framework

13. Paragraph 10(1)(e) of the Broadcasting Act empowers the
Commission to make regulations "respecting the proportion of time
that may be devoted to the broadcasting of programs, including
advertisement or announcements, of a partisan political character
and the assignment of that time on an equitable basis to
political parties and candidates.

JCT: In the old days, the legislation said: "all rival parties
and candidates." I don't know if Parliament dropped the word
"all" or if they chose to omit it to help their case. Of course,
if Parliament had dropped the "all parties and candidates" for
just "parties and candidates," then yes, it explains why the OCA
said the media can now exclude people from debates. Of course,
that wasn't their reason so I still think they just omitted the
word. I'll have to check.

14. Under this provision, the Commission has enacted several
regulations requiring that, during n election period,
broadcasters allocate time for broadcasting programs,
advertisements or announcements or a "partisan political
character" on an equitable basis to accredited political parties
and rival candidates in the election.

JCT: Again, omitting the "all" from the law. If Parliament
removed it, we'll have to get the courts to order them to put it
back. I'm still betting it's only a CRTC interpretation on their
circulars and not a change in the legislation by Parliament. Can
you imagine Parliamentary debate on removing the "all" from "all
rival parties and candidates?" No, I'd bet the interpretation on
their circular has been corrupted, not the law I'll be invoking.

15. On 2 Sep 1998, the Commission issued A Policy with Respect to
Election Campaign Broadcasting, Public Notice CRTC 1988-142.

JCT: No doubt fostering democracy by making sure the media know
the court has said they can exclude anyone they want if they call
it a debate.

The Public Notice set out the Commission's position regarding
various aspects of election period broadcasting. With respect to
debate programs held during an election, the Commission noted
that it may be impractical to include all rival parties and
candidates in one program.

JCT: So they can always be excluded because it's sometimes
inconvenient in one program?

However, the Commission stated that if this type of broadcast
takes place, all parties and candidates should be accommodated,
even if doing so requires that more than one program be
broadcast.

JCT: Bingo! This Commission statement is why I asked that I be
accommodated after the event even if doing so required that more
than one program be broadcast or appended. Didn't they know they
should have accommodated me?
Unless I broke the rules! So now they have to rely on the rules
because the CRTC says I should have been accommodated for an
equitable portion in this circular, they did not and the reason
is because hesitated to go on the show denuded but eventually
acquiesced.

16. On 15 Mar 1995, the Commission issued Public Notice CRTC
1995-44 which revised its policy set out in Public Notice CRTC
1988-142 with respect to election debate programs. The Commission
noted that the Ontario Court of Appeal had ruled in R. v. C.B.C.
that debates were not covered by the Commission's regulations
regarding the equitable allocation of time during election
periods.

JCT: Incredible isn't it? The Commission to ensure democracy
peddling a decision for why broadcast time doesn't have to be
shared equitably among all rival political candidates. How
shameful, I'm so pleased that some of Dubin's dirty works meet
the light of day.

In light of this decision, the Commission stated that it would no
longer require that debate programs feature all rival parties and
candidates in one or more program.

JCT: Yes, in furtherance of their mandate to safeguard the
democratic integrity of Canada's elections, the Commission made
sure to alert Rogers they could get away with excluding anyone
they wanted as long as it was called a debate. Har har har. And
that's why I'm going after the CRTC and not Rogers. Yet. They
were given the power to safeguard democracy in broadcast election
debates and have failed spectacularly.

PART II - POINTS IN ISSUE

17. The Commission's submissions will address the following two
issues:
(a) The test on a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the
Commission; and

JCT: Technicalities.

(b) Whether there is an arguable ground upon which the
applicant's appeal may succeed.

JCT: 1) Whether the Ontario Court of Appeal is right that debates
are not partisan political broadcasts and if they are,
2) can media mandate candidates' promotion materials.


PART III - SUBMISSIONS

A. Test for leave to appeal

18. An appeal to this Court from a decision of the Commission
under the Broadcasting ACt may only be brought on a question of
law or jurisdiction, and then only with the leave of the court.

JCT: If we're asking for leave, it's because we know we need
leave of the court.

19. The test for leave is whether there is an arguable ground
upon which an appeal might succeed.

B. Whether there is an arguable ground upon which the applicant's
appeal might succeed.

20. In the Commission's submission, the applicant has not
raised an arguable ground upon which his appeal might succeed.

JCT: I think a good question of law and a good question of
jurisdiction.

21. The applicant has failed to point to an error in law or
jurisdiction made by the Commission in the decision.

JCT: Not appealing the O.C.A.'s silly ruling that debates are not
of a partisan political character is one big one. Letting them
dictate a candidates' promotional materials is a lack of
jurisdiction.

The applicant's argument - that Rogers did not have sufficient
justification to remove him from the election debate program

JCT: Once I had complied with the dictator's command.

- is premised on the notion that he was entitled to an equitable
share in the debate program pursuant to ss.27(4). However, in the
Decision, the Commission reiterated that subsection 27(4) does
not apply to debate programs because they are not programs of a
"partisan political character."

JCT: Har har har har. It's so funny to keep hearing that. Because
a triplet of provincial judges said so.

The Commission notes that the application does not seek to
contest this conclusion.

JCT: Boy, are they wrong.

As such, the applicant's argument about the sufficiency of
Rogers' reasons for ejecting him from the debate and does not
point to an error of law or jurisdiction by the Commission.

JCT: After I had complied with Fuhrer Philp's command. And
letting Rogers dictate candidates' promotional materials is
undemocratic.

22. Furthermore, in determining that ss.27(4) does not apply to
election debate programs, the Commission was merely following
existing judicial precedent as well as its own public notices.

JCT: And the Commission said they should have had an extra show
to accommodate all candidates. They did not and the reason why
they failed is now important.

23. In R. v. CBC, the Ontario Court of Appeal established clearly
that election debates do not constitute programs of "partisan
political character" within the meaning of the Commission's
regulations since they present a number of different political
viewpoints.


JCT: Because they present a number, they don't have to present
all? Typical lawyer thinking. Har har har.

The court stated that "while the statements made by each of the
participants are undoubtedly partisan, the program itself is
clearly not."

JCT: Clear to a lawyer's brain maybe that partisan statements
don't make for a show of partisan political character." Har har
har.

Leave to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court was denied.

JCT: You'd expect the top court to provide the top screw-ups.

24. As a result of the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision, the
Commission issued Public Notice 1995-44 which stated it would no
longer require that debate programs feature all rival parties and
candidates in one or more programs. This Public Notice was
referred to in Broadcasting Circular 2007-5 which was issued in
connection with the 2007 Ontario provincial election.

JCT: Just in time to ensure a better democracy! Har har har.
Okay, so because the Ontario Court of Appeal said it's okay to
exclude candidates, the Commission has now gone even further so
that media no longer have to accommodate all rival candidates on
different programs any more. If they don't need to include them
at all, there's no need for another show. They can now just
exclude whom they want. Democracy Dubin-style. Bet he's burning
in Hell. He's a guy hiding from a billion lost souls he had the
chance to save but didn't do social service, words I hope he's
ruing yet.

25. The applicant has not raised any reason to doubt the
correctness of R. v. CBC or the Commission's reliance on that
decision.

JCT: That's what I'm going to now have to do since the Commission
has now raised the silly ruling in defence of its policy of
permitting the media to exclude candidates from political debates
of non-partisan political character. Nyuk nyuk nyuk nyuk.

For the foregoing reasons, the Commission submits that the
applicant has not raised an arguable error of law or jurisdiction
upon which his appeal might succeed.

JCT: Let's see if I can raise those issues in response to their
defence to permitting media to exclude candidates from debates.
Remember, these are the guys who can change the policy so that
the court's can't say it's equitable to exclude candidates. They
have the responsibility to ensure fairness and to say they can't
because the courts have ordered unfairness is silly when they get
to write the policy that the court's interpret. They have the
power to compel the media to be fair and that they rely on an
irrational court judgment to thwart their own mission says it
all. The ultimate dereliction of duty.

PART IV - ORDER SOUGHT

26. The Commission respectfully submits that the applicant's
motion for leave to appeal should be denied.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
June 1 2009
Regan Morris
Solicitor for the Commission
CRTC Ottawa Ontario

JCT: I have until June 15 to file my Reply. I don't think I'm
even going to go read the Ontario Court of Appeal decision. I'm
just going to do like I've done so far and just point out how
"Statements of partisan political character do not make debates
of partisan political character" is a contradiction. I'll let the
Crown go into the details how they arrived that this inane
conclusion. Judges are all lawyers, what do you expect? Most are
like this.

I bet the Court argues that statements of partisan political
character influence voters but since they get to hear all
statements at a debate, the debate itself isn't of political
character since it's evenly spread out. All this presumes that
all rival philosophies are offered. Then they extend the
principle that debates with all candidates are not partisan to
debates with less than all candidates are not partisan either.
Yet, partisan means it influences in your direction, it biases in
your direction, it induces voters in your direction. Not all
candidates is the ultimate partisan political broadcast! And
these lawying judges have come to the very opposite conclusion.
Where have we seen this tendency before? Har har.

So my official Reply in a few days.

File No. 2484/08
                 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

Between:
                       Terrance Parker
                                                    Appellant
                             and
                    Her Majesty the Queen
                                                   Respondent

      REPLY TO RESPONDENT'S SUPPLEMENTARY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
    (in the Appeal of the Order of Clements J. made Dec 7 2007)

1 After the Crown brought the Sfetkopoulos Federal Court of
Appeal decision on failure in MMAR S.41(b.1) to this Court's
attention, Appellant introduced the Supreme Court of Canada's
final dismissal and enlightening background documentation. New
facts make new supplementary submissions necessary for the court
to have the full story.

NOTHING NEW

2. Cr: [1].. The Appellant's supplementary submissions are
completely unnecessary. Both parties addressed the impact of the
Sfetkopoulos decision on Feb 17 2009."

3. Appellant has newly introduced the Crown Memorandum describing
the feared effect of the Sfetkopoulos that needed to be stayed:
"[33] The Court in R. v. J.P. ruled that the combined effect of
Parker and Hitzig meant there was no constitutionally valid
marijuana possession offence between July 31 2001 and Oct 7 2003,
the date the MMAR were constitutionally rectified by the decision
in Hitzig. Courts may construe the Federal Court of Appeal's
decision as creating a similar period of retrospective invalidity
dating back to December 3 2003, the date that s.41(b.1) was re-
introduced into the MMAR."

4. Appellant has newly noted the R. v. Beren decision found in
the Crown's documentation which the Crown herein chose not to
bring to this court's attention in which Madame Justice
Koenigsberg in Paragraph [127] about grower limitations ruled:
"[127] Adopting the reasoning in Hitzig and Sfetkopoulos, further
bolstered by the evidence before this court, I find ss.41(b.1)
and 54.1 of the MMAR contrary to s. 7 of the Charter."

5. This second MMAR failure in paragraph [127] about the grower
malfunction in Section 54.1 was left unchallenged by the Crown
who responded to her concerns in Paragraphs 94-97 about lack of
doctor participation which Appellant did not newly raise!

6. Appellant newly compares the lapse of the stay of the
Sfetkopoulos effect out of the now functus officio Supreme Court
of Canada being analogous to the lapse of the O'Leary stay of the
Krieger invalidation of the S.7(1) cultivation prohibition when
the Alberta Court of Appeal became functus officio in 2003.

NOTHING CHANGES

7. CR: The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada changes
nothing relevant to this appeal.

8. It lifts the stay that prevented Courts from construing the
Federal Court of Appeal's decision as creating a similar period
of retrospective invalidity dating back for 6 years to December 3
2003, the date that s.41(b.1) was re-introduced into the MMAR"
pursuant to the R. v. J.P. ruling that the combined effect of
Parker and Hitzig meant there was no constitutionally valid
marijuana possession offence for 2 years between July 31 2001 and
Oct 7 2003, the date the MMAR were constitutionally rectified by
the decision in Hitzig.

MMAR NOT FLAWED IN GENERAL

9. CR: 3. The Federal Court of Appeal addressed only paragraph
41(b.1) of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR)
finding that provision unconstitutional.

10. The Beren decision addressed paragraphs 41(b.1) and 54.1.
This case also addresses the 60:1 odds of finding a doctor. The
J.P. decision addressed 4 paragraphs.

11. CR: The Court did not address the constitutional validity of
ss.4(1) of the CDSA..

12. Appellant concedes that York University Osgoode Hall Law
School "Professor Alan Young Did Not Ask" that the link feared by
the Crown between the last 6 years being analogous to the Parker
2 years of invalidity be made that discovering a short in the
MMAR exemption shorts out of the CDSA prohibition. To argue that
the Appellant cannot ask that the feared analogy be made because
Court Clutz Young failed to ask is not a valid reason. . It has
been left to Appellant Terry Parker to invoke the Sfetkopoulos
effect feared enough by the Crown to be stayed twice. Since this
failure of Professor Young to make the J.P. link is cited in all
the judgments raised by the Crown to argue the link does not
exist, I'll henceforth dub it the PAYDNA conclusion: "Professor
Alan Young Did Not Ask."

13. CR:.. or the constitutionality of the MMAR scheme in general.

14. The J.P. Court of Appeal ruled the CDSA prohibition was
shorted out when it found 4 constitutional malfunctions in the
MMAR exemption without having to address the constitutionality of
the MMAR scheme in general. Sfetkopoulos found one flaw in
S.41(b.1). Koenigsberg J. in Beren addressed two flaws in both
S.41(b.1) and S.54.1. And Appellant Terry Parker addresses a
third MMAR malfunction in the long odds of finding a doctor. If
J.P. did not have to address every problem with the whole MMAR
scheme in general, Appellant doesn't have to either. To say that
the CDSA is not shorted out because only a few malfunctions have
been discovered in the MMAR and not all is technically inane.

15. CR: As a result, the decision cannot result in the
constitutional invalidity of ss.4(1) of the CDSA as suggested by
the Appellant.

16. PAYDNA again, because Ganja Gilligan Young failed to strike
at the heart of the beast does not preclude Terry Parker from
striking where no one has struck before.

17. CR: 4. The Federal Court itself has since recognized that the
decision in Sfetkopoulos does not invalidate the prohibition
against possession of marihuana. In the case of Edwin Pearson et
al v. HMQ, Prothonotary Aalto explained situation as follows:
"[16].. nothing in the Sfetkopoulos decision suggests that
section 4 of the CDSA is of no force and effect."

18. Appellant agrees Court Clutz Professor Alan Young Did Not
Ask, PAYDNA.

19. "[17] In sum, while the earlier medical marihuana
jurisprudence (Parker, supra) did challenge the constitutional
validity of s.4 of the CDSA, the cases have shifted in their
focus to the operation of the medical marijuana supply regime
codified under the MMAR."

20. None of the Alan Young-inspired cases challenged the CDSA
prohibition. All challenged shorts found in the MMAR exemption
without making the J.P. link to short out the CDSA prohibition.
Only Turmel-engineered jurisprudence has ever challenged the
constitutional validity of the CDSA with the shorts found in the
MMAR as in the case herein.

21. ".. And while the skirmishes concerning the MMAR are ongoing,
none of the jurisprudence concerning the MMAR has attacked the
underlying validity of s.4 of the CDSA." [Emphasis added]

22. Yes, Professor Alan Young Did Not Ask, PAYDNA.

23. CR: 5. Prothonotary Aalto's decision was subsequently upheld
by Justice Hughes.

24. We agree with the Aalto and Hughes rulings that PAYDNA.

R. V. LONG

25. CR: 6. The question of whether the decision in Sfetkopoulos
invalidates ss.4(1) of the CDSA was recently addressed by Justice
Frank in R. v. Long.

26. This is not true. Frank J. specifically refused to address
the non-related Sfetkopoulos ruling stating at:
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2008/2008canlii64390/2008canlii64390.html
"[45].. this appeal proceeds on different grounds and must be
determined exclusively on the basis of the factual record before
the court in this appeal.
[46] Unlike Sfetkopoulos, this appeal involves a review of the
constitutionality of an entire regulatory scheme and the question
of whether a policy must be embodied in law for the Regulations
to be constitutionally valid. Strayer D.J. refused to consider
the trial decision in the case at hand, stating that the issue of
whether the policy in issue should be embodied in law was not
relevant to his finding. Consistent with that, the Federal Court
of Appeal did not address the issue.
[47] Both the facts and the issues in Sfetkopoulos are
distinguishable from this case and it is therefore of no
assistance to Mr. Long in the determination of the issue on this
appeal."

27. Appellant agrees with both Justice Strayer and Justice Frank
that whether the MMAR must be embodied in policy or in law is
"very different," "distinguishable" and irrelevant to whether the
MMAR has malfunctions.

The Crown has once again misinformed the Court by suggesting "the
question of whether the decision in Sfetkopoulos invalidates
ss.4(1) of the CDSA was recently addressed by Justice Frank in R.
v. Long" and Appellant submits that it is contemptuous to suggest
Justice Frank ruled on something irrelevant when she evidently
did not.

28. Justice Frank concluded that ss.4(1) is not invalidated by
the decision in Sfetkopoulos.

29. Though we agree that "Professor Alan Young Did Not Ask" that
ss.4(1) be invalidated by Sfetkopoulos, PAYDNA, Justice Frank
concluded that ss.4(1) is not invalidated by the Borenstein
technical decision in Long only.

30. Appellant cites at least 7 times Justice Frank notes the LINK
between the CDSA invalidity whenever there is a flaw in the MMAR:
- [1].. That exemption has given rise to challenges regarding the
constitutionality of the s. 4(1) prohibition.
- [3].. whether the scheme in place does not provide a
constitutionally acceptable medical exemption to the criminal
prohibition.
- constitutionality is dependent on two conditions being met:
- [6] s. 4(1) violated s. 7 of the Charter, as there was no
constitutionally acceptable medical exemption..
- [7].. the Regulations were found to be inadequate,
- [17].. whether the government had responded to the
inadequacies identified in Hitzig in a constitutionally
acceptable manner... whether the s.4 (1) prohibition is in breach
of s. 7 of the Charter.
- [39] those circumstances that resulted in s. 4 of the CDSA
being found unconstitutional have been remedied.

R. V. POELZER

31. CR: 8. The same conclusion was reached by the Supreme Court
of B.C. in Ryan Poelzer v. Regina.

32. Justice Rounthwaite ruled at:
http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2008/01/p08_0102.htm
R: "Issues: Should there be a stay of proceedings on the grounds
that s.4(1) of the CDSA is invalid because the MMA Regs violate
the Charter?
[17].. With these provisions struck, the MMA Regs and the
prohibition under s.4(1) of the CDSA were declared valid.
[18] In December 2003 the federal government re-enacted two of
the three supply-limiting regulations struck down by the Ontario
Court of Appeal in Hitzig,
[20] The Crown cites Kubby as conclusive of the constitutionality
of the MMA Regulations... The court held that that the applicant
lacked the necessary factual basis for her application.
[24] It is true that the judgment did not refer to the fact that
two provisions of the MMA Regs were re-enacted verbatim after
being struck in Hitzig, a fact that is central to the cases of R.
v. Long[9] and Sfetkopoulos et. al. v. Attorney-General of
Canada[10], cited by the Applicant. However, the B.C. Court of
Appeal approved the B.C. Supreme Court judgment in Kubby.. found
the MMA Regulations valid."

33. Actually, the MMAR flaws in S.41(b.1) S.54.1 were not central
to Long, only whether it was enacted in policy or in law was.
This is the "no evidence of flaw is evidence of no flaw" theory.
And Kubby is another Alan Young-associated loser proceeding.

34. R: "[26] If I were wrong in concluding that Kubby decides the
matter, I would nevertheless decline to apply the reasoning in
Long and Sfetkopoulos for the following reasons.
[29]... In Sfetkopoulos, the Federal Court Deputy Judge dismissed
Long because.. he considered the question of whether the Supply
Policy should be embodied in law to be irrelevant.
[33] I also consider the remedy accorded in Long 2[21] to be
problematic...
[35] I find the decision of the Federal Court of Canada in
Sfetkopoulos no more helpful than Long. In Sfetkopoulos, a deputy
judge declared s. 41(b.1) of the MMA Regs (the re-enacted 1:1
producer to user ratio) to be unconstitutional and invalid...
[36] However, on March 19, 2008, the Federal Court of Appeal
granted a stay pending appeal[22] of the Trial Division's
judgment in Sfetkopoulos. The Crown correctly asserts that, due
to the stay, the declaration that s.41(b.1) of the MMA Regs is
unconstitutional has no effect until the appeal is disposed of.
The Applicant replies that its reasoning is persuasive and should
nevertheless be applied.
[37] I reject the Applicant's submission for these reasons. The
Sfetkopoulos decision is based on a factual finding that the
current system under the MMA Regs and the Supply Policy does not
adequately meet the needs of medical marijuana users, but the
judgment does not explain the evidence supporting this finding.
The judgment mentions that 20% of ATP holders were obtaining
marihuana from the government supplier in July 2007, but does not
explain the inference drawn from this fact, and provides no other
facts to support the finding that many medical marihuana users
were forced to obtain the drug illegally.
[38].. Applicant's argument based on Sfetkopoulos requires
proof.. Applicant cannot rely on Sfetkopoulos without
establishing the underlying facts on which the analysis is based.
[39] There is no evidence before me of access problems...
There would have to be an evidentiary basis... before I could
consider an application based on the reasoning in Sfetkopoulos.

35. Justice Rounthwaite ruled the CDSA was not shorted out by a
flaw in the MMAR; not because he disagreed with the Sfetkopoulos
malfunction but because he was bound by the Kubby ruling that the
MMAR were not flawed because Kubby lacked the necessary factual
basis to prove they were. Kubby had shown no evidence of flaws in
the MMAR so he was bound to conclude that there were none.


36. R: [40] However, whether or not Sfetkopoulos is wrongly
decided, as the Crown submits, it did not conclude that s.4(1) of
the CDSA is invalid.

37. Because Professor Alan Young Did Not Ask: PAYDNA!

38. R: A judge of the Federal Court has the power to make
declarations, and the Deputy Judge declared s. 41(b.1) of the
MMA Regs to be of no force and effect.
[41] Even if I felt able to apply Sfetkopoulos without a factual
context, and agreed with its conclusions, the result would not be
a finding that s.4(1) is invalid.

39. According to J.P. precedent, it should have been but except
that Professor Alan Young Did Not Ask, PAYDNA.

40.R: [44] I therefore conclude that  s.4(1) of the CDSA is
constitutionally valid for the following reasons:
I am bound by the decision of the B.C. Court of Appeal in Canada
v. Kubby, which held s.4(1) to be constitutionally valid. I am
also not bound by the judgment of the Federal Court Trial
Division in Sfetkopoulos et al v. Attorney-General of Canada,
which is also under appeal and has been stayed pending appeal.
The facts necessary for me to apply its reasoning have not been
proven in this application.

41. So, Justice Rounthwaite rejects Long because the reasoning is
no good and rejects Sfetkopoulos because it is stayed and rather
than rely on the informed judgments made on the evidence of
malfunction in the federal legislation by the Federal Court of
Appeal, Rounthwaite J. chooses to be bound by the uninformed
judgment by his B.C. Court of Appeal that no evidence of
malfunction is evidence of no malfunction. He is not bound by
declaration of "evidence of MMAR malfunction" found in the
Sfetkopoulos while being bound by "no evidence of MMAR
malfunction" found in Kubby, like choosing to keep his eyes
closed.

42. Moreover, it does not conclude that s.4(1) is invalid.
A.E. Rounthwaite Provincial Court Judge

43. PAYDNA again. The Crown has failed to show the Poelzer ruling
rejected Sfetkopoulos on its merits.

R. V. BEREN

44. CR: 9. Finally, the Appellant suggests that the recent
decision of Justice Koenigsberg of the B.C. Supreme Court in R.
v. Beren (released without written reasons Feb 2 2009) supports
his contention that the "physician as gatekeeper" model is
unconstitutional. Quite the opposite is true.
10. It is clear from the following passage from Madam Justice
Koenigsberg's reasons, issued on or about April 7 2009, that the
requirement that a physician authorize a person's use of
marihuana for medical purposes is not a barrier to access:
[94]...

45. Appellant never raised a "physician as gatekeeper' issue from
paragraphs 94-97. Appellant raised paragraph 127 about a flaw in
the grower section:
"[127] Adopting the reasoning in Hitzig and Sfetkopoulos, further
bolstered by the evidence before this court, I find ss.41(b.1)
and 54.1 of the MMAR contrary to s. 7 of the Charter."

46. Appellant is not arguing that having his family doctor
supervise medication is a barrier. he's arguing that the failure
to make his family doctor participate in the MMAR is, with only 1
in 60 doctors in Ontario participating.

Though there may have been no evidence that lack of physician
participation was a barrier to access, that is not evidence that
lack of physician participation is no barrier to Terry Parker's
access with odds of 60:1 in Ontario.  We raised the Beren uncited
Beren decision to show that a second flaw has been judicially
discovered in section 54.1 of the MMAR and the Crown's only
rebuttal is to say it's not too hard to find a doctor!

RECAP

47.Repeated throughout is the PAYDNA notion that the failure of
Court Clutz Ganja Gilligan Young to ask that the analogy be made
between the Parker 2 years of invalidity and the Sfetkopoulos 6
years means the link cannot be made by a less clutzy advocate.

48. Repeated throughout is the notion that "no evidence of
malfunction" equals "evidence of no malfunction." One hundred
courts finding "no evidence of flaw" because they looked in the
wrong place is not "evidence of no malfunction" especially when
other courts are have already pointed them out and condemned them
in the right place. This Court should trust not the judges who
"saw no evidence of failure" but the judges who "saw evidence of
failure" presented by the victims?

49. R. v. Long did not address whether Sfetkopoulos invalidates
ss.4(1) of the CDSA.

50. R. v. Poelzer did not address whether Sfetkopoulos
invalidates ss.4(1) of the CDSA.

51. R. v. Beren did declare a second flaw in the MMAR which the
Crown did not address.

52. Appellant asks the Court to construe the Federal Court of
Appeal's decision in Sfetkopoulos as creating a similar period of
retrospective invalidity dating back to December 3 2003, the date
that s.41(b.1) was re-introduced into the MMAR" pursuant to the
Court of Appeal in R. v. J.P. which ruled that the combined
effect of Parker and Hitzig meant there was no constitutionally
valid marijuana possession offence between July 31 2001 and Oct 7
2003, the date the MMAR were constitutionally rectified by the
decision in Hitzig."

Dated at Brantford on June 9 2009

_________________________
Agent for the Appellant
John C. Turmel, B.Eng.,
8-37 Colborne St. E.,
Brantford, N3T 2G3,
Tel/Fax: 519-753-0645,
Email: johnturmel@...

For the Respondent:
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
Per: James Gorham James.gorham@...

Jct: So that's it. Our last submission to Justice Tulloch.
You have to admit that the Crown's response was pretty
pathetic. Har har har har.

JCT: I got an invitation from a highly-rated CBC program Dragons'
Den to try to convince their five rich dragons that it's worth
investing in my favorite topic, time-banking.

>CBC Dragons' Den
>Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 3:41 PM
>From: "Richard Maerov" <Richard.Maerov@...>
>To: johnturmel@... John,

RM: I'm a producer for the CBC-TV show Dragons' Den. Don't know
if you're familiar with it, but we are currently taping our
fourth season, to be aired this fall. You can find out about the
show and watch episodes from last season at our website
http://www.cbc.ca/dragonsden.

JCT: I have scanned across it but inventors and innovators trying
to get "investment" to engineer their good idea never kept my
attention long when I was trying to build a world where everyone
had credit at the national bank to back their try at whatever
they were qualified for. No need for investors with a Sugar-Daddy
interest-free loan, right? So how can they profit from giving
everyone interest-free loans other than quintupling markets for
useful things.

RM: I'm contacting you on the off chance you would be interested
in pitching to the dragons for our show (very soon! early next
week).

JCT: Don't these guys know there's a media blackout on John The
Engineer? I got the Crown to drop the charges against 4000 people
and they didn't even mention my name. I once did a CTV interview
that was too hot to broadcast so they said they'd forgotten to
turn on their audio! Har har har. Professionals. I guess the
person interviewing me didn't notice he couldn't hear what I was
saying? I hope CBC find a better excuse if this proves too hot to
handle. Let's face it, I love being brutal with gnurds. Must
control.. must control.. must control..

RM: I don't know what kinds of projects you have going on
currently, or if there is something you have been trying to get
off the ground, but maybe there is something that you could
plausibly see pitching to the dragons.

JCT: I've been pitching interest-free banking to voters for the
past 30 years so facing a pentuplet of dragons won't faze a
Professor of Banking Systems Engineering much as long as we stay
on topic of Banking Systems Engineering applications to global
time-trading.

RM: Typically, pitchers come in with a business (either in
concept stage or a few years of sales) and give up equity in
their company for a specific amount of investment, and the
Dragons are looking for a return in the next 3-5 years - but we
could accept a less "typical" pitch if you have a suggestion in
mind.

JCT: My problem is that I'll have to convince them that rather
than invest in a timebank just to make a profit, invest in a
timebank to save you and your community and make a profit. More
philanthropic than commercial but must show a profit either way.

RM: You have a unique background and public speaking skill that
might be interesting for our show.

JCT: I've always stolen the show with my world-changing UNILETS
pitch, should be no different now.

RM: This is very last minute, we only have 5 more possible pitch
days left beginning this Saturday and ending on Wednesday of next
week. Pitches typically last around 20 minutes and take place in
our CBC studios downtown Toronto.

JCT: Typically. So if I grab their attention and if it's
important enough, they can let it go on longer? I hope. I could
throw in some verse.

RM: Thanks for letting me know if this might interest you as soon
as possible and we can discuss further. Cheers, Richard
Richard Maerov | Associate Producer | CBC Television -
Factual Entertainment | 416.205.3819 | richard.maerov@...
205 Wellington Street West, Toronto

JCT: I wrote back to say: sure. This would surely be the most
unusual pitch because I'm not going to be wanting to profit by it
and you're supposed to offer them a money-making corporate
proposal or invention.

But here's my first thought. I hear some of them are pretty rich,
one with hundreds of millions, and a couple from Toronto. So
here's what I'll try to pitch.

Looking at the growth of the time-based community currency
systems (LETS, Timedollars, Timebanks, Ithaca Hours where hours
of human work are collateral for the chips) and cash-based
community currency systems (Berkshares, Toronto Dollars) where
cash buy-ins with premiums or discounts are collateral for the
chips). I advise a combination of both, chips issued on the basis
of time and on the basis of cash at premium.

Dragons could start up time-based currencies in their community
or buy-into a cash-based community currency like Berkshares. Or
Toronto Dollars. Right?

When you buy-in for Berkshares for $100, they give you a premium
of $110 in community chips to spend locally. You can cash out at
the same rate you bought in so there is no risk, it's just like
buying chips in a casino.

So Canadian Dragons who bought into the Toronto Dollar System
would make an immediate 10% future gain (non-taxed because it's
not real money) on the $100 but only taxable when they spend it,
(when it acts like real money).

If they have employees in Toronto to help them spend locally,
great. But better yet is to help induce everyone in Toronto to
accept the Toronto Dollars but giving the City of Toronto a
Toronto Dollar account and then let the City borrow a billion or
two interest-free as long as it's only used to pay for people
service and not debt service and can used to pay our taxes.

These cash-buy-in models enjoy what I call the Sparta Effect,
they get the interest from the cash in the bank while buyers get
a 10% premium to spend locally.

If you don't have a community currency nearby for you to make
this profit, start one.

Luckily, there is an already existing Toronto Dollar System so
I'm going to ask him to put his $500,000,000 into the Toronto
Dollar System's account, take $550,000,000 in Toronto Dollars and
pre-pay $500,000,000 in taxes to Toronto City Hall.
At the same time, get the Toronto Dollar System to print up
another couple of billion in Toronto Dollars and lend them to the
city interest-free on the condition that any Toronto Dollars
spend in the upkeep of the city may be used to pay Toronto taxes.
That's what I'd do if I had Big Money to get not only my
automatic 10% on my whole bankroll but help my community fund its
services too.

Now, imagine if instead of putting the cash in the bank, the
millionaire permitted half of it to be micro-loaned out interest-
free to new indebted members who offer time and skills. But when
a member is finally out of debt, he continues banking his
surpluses which are loaned out interest-free to the next
generation of freed debtors. What an incredible amount of good
could be accomplished with the merging of the time-based currency
with the cash-based local currency and micro-lending the cash.

I'm trying to get them to help me market a do-it-yourself banking
software to free the debt slaves of the world and I have to show
it's so much in their best interest, whatever business they are
in will benefit from tapping in on the underground economy's new
time-based currency markets, that it's worth setting up the new
UNILETS trapeze to do some personal economic gymnastics.

>Dragons' Den Contestant Guide
>Date: Friday, May 29, 2009 3:43 PM
>From: "Richard Maerov" <Richard.Maerov@...>
>To: johnturmel@...
DragonsDenContestantGuide402.pdf (638KB)
Hi John, Find attached a copy of our Dragons' Den Contestant
Guide. Take some time to read through this, it should help answer
some basic questions about what to expect for your business pitch
to the Dragons.
Again, we have you booked to pitch on Sunday, May 31. Sign in
just inside the John St. entrance no later than 12 noon.
Please let me know if you have any more questions. Looking
forward to having you on. Richard
---

Dragons' Den Call Time - Sunday, May 31st
CANLETS TIMEBANK
Friday, May 29, 2009 5:19 PM
From: "Jesse Barkley" <Jesse.Barkley@...>
To: johnturmel@...
Cc: "Richard Maerov" <Richard.Maerov@...>

JB: Hi John!
Jesse here from Dragons' Den - hope you're having a good time
gearing up for your chance to face the dragons!

JCT: Face the dragons! They'd better gear up to face the world's
toughest combat engineer. If they don't know their stuff, I'll
make them look like low-tech. I guess they might not play the
piece if I'm too rough. So I guess I'll have to go easy on the
slower ones.

JB: Some more information regarding your pitch date of Sunday,
May 31st:

You have been booked for the afternoon time slot. You are
expected to arrive at the CBC 25 John Street Entrance at NOON
SHARP, where a production assistant will meet you and accompany
you to the studio. Being on time is crucial! If you are late, it
can affect your chances of appearing in front of the Dragons.  If
you have any problems, if you are going to be late, or if you
have an emergency, please call me at 416.205.5991.

The first item of business will be to drop off your props
backstage. At this point, you will meet with the director. Be
prepared to part with anything the director is not okay with
having on television - you have likely already been warned by
your producer that we won't be allowing big white poster boards,
or trade show-style setups (unless already okay-ed by your
producer).
Next, you will be taken on a tour of the Dragons' Den set.  From
there, you will head to the Pitchers lounge...where you will
await your turn in the Den!  Please remember that due to the
unpredictable nature of television, we cannot confirm a specific
time you will be pitching - the order is constantly changing.
You may have to wait in the lounge for several hours - bring
snacks, a book, and make some new friends!
Please reply to confirm you have received this email.  I want to
make sure you are clear whether you will be pitching in the
morning or afternoon. Also, I have included a link which should
answer any questions you may have regarding directions.
http://www.mapquest.com/maps?city=Toronto&state=ON&address=25+John+Street&zipcod\
e=M5V&country=CA&latitude=43.644716&longitude=-79.388959&geocode=ADDRESS
Thanks so much! Good luck,
Jesse Barkley, Dragons' Den
CBC Factual Entertainment
205 Wellington Street West, Suite 9E310-B Toronto, Ontario
M5V 3G7 CANADA w. 416.205.5991 jesse.barkley@...
---

JCT: The Contestant's Guide says there's no guarantee they'll use
anybody's pitch. So I'd better not be too brutal though I know
brutality is what people love to watch. But I'll have to be
gentle with the slower learners.

At least you'll be able to read what went on when the
KingofthePaupers entered the Dragons' Den even if it's too hot
for them to broadcast.

Anyway, the show is to be broadcast in the fall and I think it's
fair that I not reveal whether the Dragons decide to invest or
not (unless cops are called or something melodramatic).

So I'm off, we'll see if the Dragons have eyes to see and ears to
hear.

[continued

J: [8] In December 2003,

JCT: No, she skipped over the 2-year period of invalidity that is
so analogous to this upcoming 6-year period of invalidity...

J: several months after the Court of Appeal decision in Hitzig,
the Government amended the Regulations and brought the Policy on
Supply of Marihuana Seeds and Dried Marihuana ("Supply Policy")
into effect. Its stated purpose was to provide reasonable access
to a legal source of supply of marihuana to persons authorized to
possess it for medical purposes.
[9] The Supply Policy was based on an Interim Supply Policy
("ISP") that was implemented in the summer of 2003, pending the
hearing of the Hitzig appeal and clarification from the court as
to the government's responsibilities.[10]  The ISP and amendments
to the Regulations were drafted following consultation with the
Stakeholder Advisory Committee on Medical Marihuana, the Canadian
Medical Association and representatives of law enforcement
agencies.
[10] The new scheme sought to address the inadequacy of a legal
source of supply of marihuana identified in Hitzig by offering
holders of Authorizations to Possess Marihuana who did not have a
Personal Use Production Licence or Designated Person Production
Licence the option of obtaining marijuana from a government
supply.
[11] Following the promulgation of these amendments and the
replacement of the ISP with the Supply Policy, the government
commenced its second phase of the review of the Regulations.
After consultation with an expanded group of interested parties,
further amendments were made to the Regulations.

JCT: These are the two Stupid Gimmes, re-enacting S.41(b.1) and
S.54.1.

J: These were intended to streamline the regulatory requirements
and processes involved in obtaining authorizations to possess
marihuana under the Regulations, avoid unnecessary law
enforcement action being taken and move the provision of
marihuana for medical purposes in Canada toward a more
traditional health care model.  This second phase of amendments
came into force on June 7, 2005.[11]

JCT: Too bad she didn't take note that these were conditions that
had previously been declared shorts by her higher-ups. Didn't she
notice? Especially when they were pointed out to her via the
Sfetkopoulos ruling and she still didn't note the Stupid Gimmes?

J: Mr. Long's Position
[12] Mr. Long does not argue that the government's response to
Hitzig was ineffective.

JCT: Yes, he does not. We and Sfetkopoulos do.

J: It was conceded on his behalf that the government is meeting
the needs of all persons authorized to possess marihuana.[12]

JCT: It is not conceded on Terry's behalf that the government is
meeting the needs...

J: [13] Mr. Long attacks s. 4 because the Government's remedy for
the Court of Appeal's Charter violation finding in Hitzig is
pursuant to a policy rather than legislation. Therefore, he
submits it is inadequate.

JCT: So the CDSA is shorted because of the technicality.

J: The Crown's Position
[14] The technicality lost so who cares why.
[15]

Trial Decision
[16] The trial judge found that the government succeeded in
eliminating the problem of access to marihuana for medical use
found in Hitzig to breach s. 7 of the Charter.

JCT: He found no flaws in the access program? He failed to see
flaws in the access program? Many times, when judges say "I fail
to see," it's because they have their eyes closed.

J: However, the trial judge held that as this was a result of the
implementation of policy rather than legislation, the
constitutional breach was not remedied.

JCT: Borenstein's wrong reason for his right conclusion.

J: He held that absent the government obligating itself by law to
supply marihuana to eligible persons, s. 4(1) of the CDSA was
unconstitutional.

JCT: Borenstein's right conclusion for his wrong reason.

J: Accordingly, he dismissed the charge against Mr. Long.

JCT: Borenstein's right remedy for his right conclusion for his
wrong reason.

J: [17] The question the trial judge asked himself in reaching
this decision was whether the government had responded to the
inadequacies identified in Hitzig in a constitutionally
acceptable manner. In framing the issue in that way, the trial
judge led himself into error. The question to be asked is whether
the s.4 (1) prohibition is in breach of s. 7 of the Charter.

JCT: She forgot "when there's a short in the MMAR." How can she
forget that part of the question? How can she deal with the issue
without that part of the question? And the Crown's relying on
this? The Parker Court has already determined that s.4(1) is in
breach. It doesn't have to be done again. So this is a waste of
time since the Hitzig Court determined that the MMAR had 4 shorts
in the MMAR exemption and the J.P. court ruled that when the MMAR
exemption is shorted, the CDSA prohibition is shorted out too.
And frankly, since this policy v. legislation argument right to
relevant the stuff related to Sfetkopoulos that the Crown says
backs their case:

J: [39] There is no dispute on the factual record before the
Court that the scheme which the government has adopted in place
of the remedy ordered in Hitzig is effective in achieving the
goal of providing lawful access to marihuana to those who
demonstrate a therapeutic need.

JCT: No dispute on record by the Long team. So what? There is
dispute by Parker, Sfetkopoulos and Beren.

J: In other words, those circumstances that resulted in s. 4 of
the CDSA being found unconstitutional have been remedied.

JCT: To bad re-enacting the struck down statute that is now
deemed repealed was never done though they were about to before
the Medpot Combat Engineer went on Parliament Hill and scared
them out of introducing the new legislation! Phew! A close call.

JCT: (iv) A.G. v. Sfetkopoulos

[43] Subsequent to counsel having argued this matter before me,
the Federal Court of Appeal released its decision in The Attorney
General of Canada v. Sfetkopoulos, et al.,[32] which also dealt
with a challenge to the government scheme regulating access to
marihuana. I gave counsel the opportunity to make submissions
with respect to that decision and they have done so.

JCT: So she knows 3 higher judges have declared a short in the
CDSA.

[44] Sfetkopoulos involved an application for judicial review of
the decision of the Minister of Health with respect to the
granting of licenses to marihuana producers. The applicants
requested an order declaring s. 41(b.1) of the Regulations, which
prevents producers from obtaining more than one license to
produce marihuana, invalid and an order that the matter be
referred back to the Minister of Health for reconsideration of
the applicants' request to have a different marihuana producer
designated than the government's licensed dealer.  The Federal
Court of Appeal upheld the decision of Strayer D.J.[33] striking
down s. 41(b.1).

JCT: So she knows three higher federal judges presiding over
federal legislation have declared a short in the MMAR.

J: [45] Both counsel agree that I am not bound by the Court's
determination that s. 41(b.1) of the Regulations was
unconstitutional and its declaration of invalidity.

JCT: Both counsel agree she can close her eyes to the short in
the MMAR. I don't think I would have agreed.

J: In addition, both conceded that this appeal proceeds on
different grounds and must be determined exclusively on the basis
of the factual record before the court in this appeal.

JCT: True, the appeal is about the technicality, not about any of
the other shorts present over the past 6 years Long's law team
did not bother to bring up. They could have made the very same
arguments on the Sfetkopoulos short to short out the CDSA for
their client but did not.

JCT: Nonetheless, Counsel for Mr. Long submits that Sfetkopoulos
is persuasive authority that the current scheme continues to be
in violation of s. 7 of the Charter.

JCT: Now backed up by the Supreme Court of Canada, yes, it's
persuasive that the Crown's greatest fear stayed at every step of
the way, a 6-year like 2-year invalidation period, is persuasive
authority.

J: [46] Unlike Sfetkopoulos, this appeal involves a review of the
constitutionality of an entire regulatory scheme and the question
of whether a policy must be embodied in law for the Regulations
to be constitutionally valid.

JCT: That's right. Is there a ground in the foundation whether
the MMAR works or not is all that's being discussed and evidence
that it is not working will not be considered in discussing
whether it was implemented wrongly.

J: Strayer D.J. refused to consider the trial decision in the
case at hand, stating that the issue of whether the policy in
issue should be embodied in law was not relevant to his
finding.[34]

JCT: That's right. Even if Justice Frank rules that a working
policy is as good as a working law, it is irrelevant to whether
it's working or not, which is what Strayer was handling.

JCT: Consistent with that, the Federal Court of Appeal did not
address the issue.

JCT: The irrelevant not-raised issue of the technicality? Why
would he? She sounds insulted that her decision on an irrelevant
technicality isn't worth considering. Har har.

J: [47] Both the facts and the issues in Sfetkopoulos are
distinguishable from this case and it is therefore of no
assistance to Mr. Long in the determination of the issue on this
appeal.

JCT: So a short on the merits found in Sfetkopoulos is not
relevant to whether Borenstein found a short on a technicality in
Long.

J: However, it is worth noting that in arriving at his decision,
Strayer D.J. did take the Supply Policy into consideration, along
with the Regulations.

Conclusion
[48] Given the evidence and the trial judge's finding on the
evidence that "[p]pursuant to the Policy being implemented, those
persons [eligible authorized persons] are in fact receiving
marihuana", [35] Mr. Long has failed to establish that state
conduct has infringed the interest of persons in medical need in
obtaining a reasonable supply of marihuana. Accordingly, he has
failed to meet the onus of establishing a threshold violation of
s. 7 of the Charter.

[49] The appeal is allowed and the trial judge's finding that s.
4(1) of the CDSA is unconstitutional is set aside. The case is to
be remitted to the Ontario Court of Justice for a trial on the
merits.

JCT: "The appeal is allowed and the trial judge's finding that s.
4(1) of the CDSA is unconstitutional is set aside" because of a
technical flaw. Not because she dismissed the Sfetkopoulos flaw
which she refused to consider.

So the Crown's statement that "Justice Frank concluded that
ss.4(1) is not invalidated by the decision in Sfetkopoulos" is
completely untrue. Justice Frank refused to consider whether
ss.4(1) is invalidated by the decision in Sfetkopoulos or not.
Amazing, isn't it. Just twisting the truth and hoping the judge
is too incompetent to notice or too obeisant to look.

So, the fact the CDSA was not shorted out by the technicality is
no reason to say that the CDSA was not shorted out by the other
malfunctions in the program.

CR: 8. The same conclusion was reached by the Supreme Court of
B.C. in Ryan Poelzer v. Regina.

JCT: Is this another lie? I'll have to go get it and check.
Notice that one again, they do not cite any particular quote.

CR: Mr. Poelzer had argued that the Federal Court of Appeal's
decision in Sfetkopoulos renders the offence of simple possession
of marihuana unconstitutional. That argument was rejected.

R. v. Poelzer 20080416
2008 BCPC 0102 File No:  14521-1
IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
REGINA v. RYAN MELVIN POELZER

RULING ON APPLICATION OF THE
HONOURABLE JUDGE A.E. ROUNTHWAITE

Counsel for the Crown: M. Sheardown
Counsel for the Defendant: K. Tousaw
Place of Hearing: Sechelt, B.C.
Date of Hearing: Written submissions filed
Date of Judgment: April 16, 2008

Issues
Should there be a stay of proceedings on the grounds that s.4(1)
of the CDSA is invalid because the MMA Regs violate the Charter?

[17]...With these provisions struck, the MMA Regs and the
prohibition under s.4(1) of the CDSA were declared valid.

JCT: So the judge admits that that when the MMA Regs are flawed,
the prohibition under S.4(1) is not valid. Then later he ignores
his own conclusion. Har har har.

[18] In December 2003 the federal government re-enacted two of
the three supply-limiting regulations struck down by the Ontario
Court of Appeal in Hitzig, re-introducing the 1:1 producer to
user ratio and the provision that a producer could not combine
production with more than two other licensed producers...

Analysis of case law
[19] A decision of a court from another province does not bind
judges in B.C., but we may apply its reasoning when we deem it
persuasive. As a Provincial Court Judge in B.C. I am bound to
follow decisions of the B.C. Supreme Court, the B.C. Court of
Appeal, and the Supreme Court of Canada.
[20] The Crown cites the B.C. Court of Appeal's decision in
Canada v. Kubby  as conclusive of the constitutionality of the
MMA Regs.

JCT: So because Kubby failed to prove a short in the MMAR, there
must be none?

The Applicant argues that the Court's pronouncement on
constitutionality is obiter dicta (an opinion that is not binding
since it is not essential to the judgment) because the Court held
that the applicant lacked the necessary factual basis for her
application.

JCT: For failure to present evidence, not for failure to present
good evidence that was dismissed on the merits. All these Marc
Emery-connected cases are like this. Always off target.

[24] It is true that the judgment did not refer to the fact that
two provisions of the MMA Regs were re-enacted verbatim after
being struck in Hitzig, a fact that is central to the cases of R.
v. Long[9] and Sfetkopoulos et. al. v. Attorney-General of
Canada[10], cited by the Applicant. However, the B.C. Court of
Appeal expressly approved the B.C. Supreme Court judgment in
Kubby[11], in which Justice Rice did consider the post-Hitzig
changes to the MMA Regs. He outlined and expressly accepted the
Crown's submissions that the federal government responded to
Hitzig and "confirmed the government's commitment to supply
marihuana for medical purposes"[12]. He then found the MMA Regs
valid.

JCT: He didn't find the Sfetkopoulos short in the MMAR. So what?
Just because he can't see with his eyes closed does not mean it's
not there?

[25]..I too am satisfied that the B.C. Court of Appeal judgment
in Kubby decides the matter of the constitutional adequacy of the
MMA Regs and s. 4(1) in B.C..

JCT: Judge thinking. Because Kubby did not find a flaw, there are
none for anyone else to find.

[26] If I were wrong in concluding that Kubby decides the matter,
I would nevertheless decline to apply the reasoning in Long and
Sfetkopoulos for the following reasons.

JCT: Here's the important stuff:

[27] The reasons for the constitutional decision in Long..

JCT: Who cares?

[28] Thus... Long 2 concluded that the s. 4(1) prohibition on the
simple possession of marihuana was of no force or effect because
the amended MMA Regs were unconstitutional.

JCT: Applying Parker 2000, a MMAR short means a CDSA short.

[29]... In Sfetkopoulos, the Federal Court Deputy Judge dismissed
Long because.. he considered the question of whether the Supply
Policy should be embodied in law to be irrelevant.

JCT: Agreed. Long is the right conclusion for the wrong reason.

[33] I also consider the remedy accorded in Long 2[21] to be
problematic... the provincially appointed judge did not have the
power to make such a declaration. Unable to order the appropriate
remedy, he applied Parker 2000 and found s. 4(1) to be
unconstitutional because the MMA Regs were unconstitutional.

JCT: Again, the CDSA prohibition is shorted out when the MMAR
exemption has a short.

[34] This is the very result rejected by the Ontario Court of
Appeal in Hitzig when it found that would be an overly broad
remedy, inadequately tailored to address those deficiencies.

JCT: No, this is the very remedy the court accepted when it found
J.P. not guilty after finding the s. 4(1)'s marihuana prohibition
shorted out because of shorts in the MMA Regs. So Judge
Rounthwaite got this backward.

[35] I find the decision of the Federal Court of Canada in
Sfetkopoulos no more helpful than Long.

JCT: Remember that the judge in Long said that they were
completely distinguishable. Completely different.

In Sfetkopoulos, a deputy judge declared s. 41(b.1) of the MMA
Regs (the re-enacted 1:1 producer to user ratio) to be
unconstitutional and invalid...
[36] However, on March 19, 2008, the Federal Court of Appeal
granted a stay pending appeal[22] of the Trial Division's
judgment in Sfetkopoulos.

JCT: Or what would have been the effect without the stay?

The Crown correctly asserts that, due to the stay, the
declaration that s.41(b.1) of the MMA Regs is unconstitutional
has no effect until the appeal is disposed of.

JCT: And now that the appeal has been disposed of, the
declaration of the MMAR short circuit has effect.

The Applicant replies that its reasoning is persuasive and should
nevertheless be applied.

JCT: It's reasoning out of the Supreme Court of Canada now...

[37] I reject the Applicant's submission for these reasons. The
Sfetkopoulos decision is based on a factual finding that the
current system under the MMA Regs and the Supply Policy does not
adequately meet the needs of medical marijuana users, but the
judgment does not explain the evidence supporting this finding.

JCT: Har har har har. Of course it does.

The judgment mentions that 20% of ATP holders were obtaining
marihuana from the government supplier in July 2007, but does not
explain the inference drawn from this fact, and provides no other
facts to support the finding that many medical marihuana users
were forced to obtain the drug illegally.

JCT: So who cares why the short in the MMAR was declared, the
point is that it was declared by 3 judges.

[38].. I consider that the branch of the Applicant's argument
based on the reasoning in Sfetkopoulos requires proof that there
is a current supply problem, with medical users being forced to
buy marihuana illegally. Given the conflict in facts in the cases
cited, I find that the Applicant cannot rely on the reasoning in
Sfetkopoulos  without establishing the underlying facts on which
the analysis is based.

JCT: The Sfetkopoulos case cannot be cited as precedence because
Poelzer has to establish all the same underlying facts again?

[39] There is no evidence before me of access problems for
medical marihuana users...There would have to be an evidentiary
basis from which I could conclude that the existing system
deprives licensed medical marihuana users of an adequate supply
before I could consider an application based on the reasoning in
Sfetkopoulos.

JCT: So she rejects Sfetkopoulos because there is no evidence
before her, not because there was evidence that she considered
and dismissed. So once again, the Crown tries so mislead Justice
Tulloch into thinking Sfetkopoulos was dismissed on merits.

[40] However, whether or not Sfetkopoulos is wrongly decided, as
the Crown submits, it did not conclude that s.4(1) of the CDSA is
invalid.

JCT: Because Alan Young didn't ask the court to make the link
between the short in the MMAR and the short in the CDSA, it
doesn't mean there is no link.

A judge of the Federal Court has the power to make declarations,
and the Deputy Judge declared s. 41(b.1) of the  MMA Regs to be
of no force and effect.

JCT: Duh... And this means what to him?

[41] Even if I felt able to apply Sfetkopoulos without a factual
context, and agreed with its conclusions, the result would not be
a finding that s.4(1) is invalid.

JCT: It should be if the judge new his law.

I would follow the approach taken in Hitzig, one of minimal
intrusion, and find that the result of the declaration in
Sfetkopoulos was to render the MMA Regs constitutional once the
offending provision was struck.

JCT: So after 6 years of being shorted out by the flaw when
Poelzer was charged, now that Sfetkopoulos has fixed the short,
it's not shorted anymore and so the former shorted-out CDSA is no
longer shorted no matter that the Interpretation Act says it's
repealed.

Summary
[44] I therefore conclude that  s.4(1) of the CDSA is
constitutionally valid for the following reasons:
- I am bound by the decision of the B.C. Court of Appeal in
Canada v. Kubby, which held s.4(1) to be constitutionally valid.

JCT: Because she didn't provide any evidence to make her case,
not because Kubby lost on the merits.

- I am also not bound by the judgment of the Federal Court Trial
Division in Sfetkopoulos et al v.Attorney-General of Canada,
which is also under appeal and has been stayed pending appeal.
The facts necessary for me to apply its reasoning have not been
proven in this application.

JCT: So Sfetkopoulos is rejected not on the merits but on the
lack of case.

Moreover, it does not conclude that s.4(1) is invalid.

JCT: Because Alan Young never asked.

Since I have concluded that s.4(1) is valid, there is no basis
for a stay of proceedings on the grounds that the legislation is
invalid.

Should there be a stay of proceedings on the grounds that the law
is unclear, making prosecution an abuse of process?

JCT: Who cares

Summary
[50]  The law is clear. Possession of marijuana is a criminal
offence. Prosecution for that offence is not an abuse of process.

Conclusion
[51] There is no basis for a stay of proceedings of the charges
against Mr. Poelzer. As a result, his application is dismissed.
A.E. Rounthwaite
Provincial Court Judge

JCT: So there it is. Another false citation that Sfetkopoulos was
rejected by another court and again, not on merits but because no
evidence was presented. Don't these lawying Government attorneys
make you sick. Besides, maybe the Sfetkopoulos point wasn't as
well argued by a lawyer as it is here by an engineer. So back to
the Crown's Factum for Parker:

CR: 9. Finally, the Appellant suggests that the recent decision
of Justice Koenigsberg of the B.C. Supreme Court in R. v. Beren
(released without written reasons Feb 2 2009)

JCT: I have no idea why they keep saying her written reasons are
not available. Where do they think I got her quotations from! Her
reasons are on the net. I even gave them the web site.
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/09/04/2009BCSC0429.htm

CR: supports his contention that the "physician as gatekeeper"
model is unconstitutional. Quite the opposite is true.

JCT: I never raised any "physician as gatekeeper' issue at all.
Har har har har. Talk about a straw man easy for them to knock
down.

CR: 10. It is clear from the following passage from Madam Justice
Koenigsberg's reasons, issued on or about April 7 2009, that the
requirement that a physician authorize a person's use of
marihuana for medical purposes is not a barrier to access:

JCT: Terry isn't arguing that having doctors supervise medication
is a barrier. he's arguing that the failure to make doctors
participate is the problem, with 1 in 60 doctors in Ontario
participating, it's not having to use the family doctor. This is
silly. Joke time.

CR: [94] Returning then to the access issue in this case,

JCT: I didn't raise the access issue, I raised Paragraph 127 of
her decision, a grower issue. Har har har.

CR: the applicant submits that this court should revisit Hitzig
on the facts before this court.  That raises the question of
whether the facts in this case engage the invitation in Hitzig to
reconsider whether the justification for physicians as
gatekeepers has become arbitrary.  In other words, is the risk or
harm sought to be prevented by the requirement outweighed by the
risk or harm of preventing access?
[95] The answer on the facts here has to be no.  Although some of
the requirements may cause some patients delay or even denial of
access for the relief sought, the potential harm to any seriously
ill patient where the authorized treatment for the illness and
the properties of marihuana may be contraindicated remain very
real and unstudied.  Further, these issues are essentially
medical issues and thus, while the drug remains unapproved and
research into its medicinal efficacy for any particular medical
condition is still preliminary, there is ample justification for
the requirement or hurdles to access set by the MMAR.
[96] Factually, the anecdotal evidence in this case supports the
proposition that it is becoming increasingly easy to obtain a
physician's support for a licence to possess marihuana.  Only one
witness before the court could not, by the time of trial, obtain
a physician's support, and she admitted that she knew of
physicians who were providing support for other patients but she
was choosing not to ask for herself.  She may have had very good
reasons for not so choosing, but it does not support the
proposition that such physicians are, in fact, unavailable.
[97] Thus, there is no factual foundation in this case to find
that access to physicians willing to provide necessary support
for the acquisition of a licence to possess has decreased since
2002 or 2003.  On the contrary, it would appear inferentially,
from the evidence before this court, to have increased.  Thus,
the MMAR provisions dealing with eligibility are not contrary to
fundamental justice and therefore are not in breach of s. 7.
There is no basis for this court to move beyond the decision in
Hitzig on this issue.

JCT: If this is some kind of weird rebuttal of Terry's argument
that 60:1 odds of finding an Ontario doctor is a flaw in the
access to marijuana, it certainly isn't in rebuttal to the point
we really raised in paragraph 127 which was:

R. v. Beren, Feb 2 2009, (B.C.S.C. #131900)
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/09/04/2009BCSC0429.htm
[127] Adopting the reasoning in Hitzig and Sfetkopoulos, further
bolstered by the evidence before this court, I find ss.41(b.1)
and 54.1 of the MMAR contrary to s. 7 of the Charter.

JCT: So, we have used the Beren case to argue that a second flaw
has been judicially discovered in section 54.1 of the MMAR and
the Crown has rebutted that the Beren decision says it's not too
hard to find a doctor. Har har har, nyuk nyuk nyuk.

CR: 11. The Respondent submits that neither the recent decision
of the B.C. Supreme Court in Beren nor the decision of the
Federal Court of Appeal in Sfetkopoulos assist the Appellant in
this appeal and further submissions on the impact of these cases
is not warranted.

JCT: An impact where Courts "may construe the Federal Court of
Appeal's decision as creating a similar period of retrospective
invalidity dating back to December 3 2003, the date that
s.41(b.1) was re-introduced into the MMAR" is too big an issue in
Crown Sean Gaudet's own words not to warrant further submissions.
Prosecutions across whole the country are in jeopardy. Gaudet's
own words belie any minor impact.

CR: ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Dated at Toronto this 20th day of May 2009.
Per James Gorham
Of Counsel for the Respondent
Her Majesty The Queen

JCT: So with the analogies of the Gaudet Goodie (6-year like 2-
year?) taking care of the J.P. and Hitzig case law, and the
analogy to the Frankel Foible (stay did not survive dismissal at
SCC so why did he say stay survived dismissal of appeal by ABA?)
taking care of the section 7 cultivation and backing up Parker
invalidating Section 4 possession prohibitions, what else do we
need but to add the final nails to the MMAR coffin that weren't
handled.

So the Crown says we did not challenge the whole "MMAR scheme in
general". The Hitzig case didn't challenge the whole "MMAR scheme
in general". So what?

We pointed out the Beren decision found a second flaw in the MMAR
shorting out the CDSA and Terry has also challenged the long odds
of getting a doctor as a third flaw short-circuiting the CDSA
prohibitions, almost as many flaws as the four found in Hitzig
and used in J.P. to declare the Section 4 prohibition unknown to
law over the 2-year Parker Period and get those 4000 charges
dropped.

So they completely failed to answer how the lapse of the stay
pending further order at the Supreme Court with the closing of
the file puts the lie to the need top lift a surviving stay of
the Krieger invalidation after the closing of the file at the
Alberta Court of Appeal.

And no actual response to the second Beren short in the MMAR
other than to talk about doctors.

Finally, wouldn't it be nice to see the Pitt decision vindicated
as never over-turned upon appeal and still alive protecting
Terry? That would be icing on the cake. Parker still protected by
Pitt J. until properly; not set aside by an peer as an un-
considered non-thought out, civil default judgment, a true insult
to be rectified.

JCT: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/turmel/message/3542 has
my submissions to Justice Tulloch on how the Sfetkopoulos ruling
helps buttress Terry Parker's S.24 claim for return of a
controlled substance after search and seizure by Canada Post.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/turmel/message/3552 is the
Crown's response. Here are my initial impressions in preparation
for Terry Parker's final Reply I'll be filing on Monday.

But first, enjoying the exquisite tension of possible victory!
What's most interesting is that we're all awaiting the Tulloch
decision with bated breath. Aren't you? I am. Well, everybody who
is aware of what's at stake and of the power the judge has to
deal with it should be.

What a front row seat to a struggle between Terry Parker and the
Government over the real Big Concern (Gaudet Goodie 6-years like
2-years) that only we know about since Alan Young and his
presstitutes keep hiding what's really going on from the majority
of the uninformed, oops, TV-informed Canadians. Same thing.

We're like an elite among a host of Big Brother-informed masses
who know that we're the only people privy to what's really at
stake with the Gaudet Goodie analogy in Judge Tulloch's hands.
We're the only people enjoying the hopeful expectation of a
decision that changes our lives for the better. And look what's
at stake. 30 million Canadians freed from threat of prosecution
for consuming God's greatest plant. The correction of hundreds of
thousands of bogus criminal records and dropping of thousands of
existing prosecutions! The Crown's true nightmare that the Alan
Young presstitutes haven't informed Canadians about.

I personally think this part of guerrilla law is always a rush,
no matter that I've lost hundreds, many hundreds of attacks for
the very few I've won. Mind you, scoring 4000 charges dropped in
one coup was quite a thrill. But to know that possible relief is
in the hands of a person with the power to grant it is the
ultimate invigorator.

So many people laugh at the Super Loser's record losses but
cannot fathom how many of them had such high-impact expectations.
Each time I asked a court to restrict the banks computers to a
pure service charge and abolish the interest charge to give
everyone interest-free loans they can pay back in cash or in
time, each shot had world-changing consequences as Canada's
international electronic banking system could have banked the
game for the whole world.

That period of uncertainty over that question taken under
advisement by the Supreme Court of Canada, would Canada and I and
then the world get an interest-free bank account funded by a pure
rake-off out of chips created rather than the demand for more
money than was created by the loan, that was the the most
exhilarating of losing gambles I've ever enjoyed. This is
smaller, less global, but it's still a substantial life-saving
rush. I'd bet I also hold the record for most court cases argued
at the top. 21 so far just this decade and 10 previously.

Each time I gambled on getting elected in my 69 elections, Had I
won, I could have used government resources to reprogram the
banking system to give my riding a network of LETS Local
Employment-Trading System timebanks. I keep running in elections
because I know what's at stake if the Banking Systems Engineer
ever wins even if few else do. Sure I'm a longshot but what an
exquisite longshot. It's an almost free gamble I have chosen to
afford 69 times and now you know why the hope for an interest-
free bank account for me (and the other real losers too) makes
each losing shot a worthwhile rush.

Though it's true that those bank fights did make the national
news, see my press pages at my http://johnturmel.com and more
people probably realized what was at stake (Socreds) by getting
rid of loansharking than are aware of what's going on here of
national importance. And here, you get a front row seat to the
planning behind what Aces Terry's going to be playing to gut our
opponent's weaknesses with barbs of humor. I'm you're making them
laugh at the other guy, no one call you "mad."

So here we have Terry's case being followed by just a few
thousand who take the time to read my feed or subscribe to my
youtube channel. By the way, sorry, but there's lots there I
didn't have time to tell you about here. But Terry's case is not
only another of those wonderfully exhilarating "dice in the air"
experiences I've enjoyed over my legal career but I also have the
chance to benefit by even new cards appearing on the River. Like
the Sfetkopoulos card popped up.

So this will be the last shot in Terry Parker's Ontario Superior
Court battle over everything that needs fixing. You know I always
welcome suggestions for additions but it's like logic circuits
that work according to Boolean Algebra. You don't need to work on
one particular circuit if another gate can be shorted out easier.

You'll remember I raised the following new Sfetkopoulos issues to
go with Parker's own unique "long odds of finding a doctor"
malfunction in the MMAR to short out the CDSA prohibition:

a1) the Gaudet Goodie that the Sfetkopoulos MMAR flaw shorting
out the CDSA prohibition these last 6 years between Dec 2003 and
now is analogous to JP-Hitzig where the 4 MMAR flaws shorted out
the CDSA prohibition for 2 years between Aug 2001 Terry Parker
Day and Oct 2003 Alan Young Day, when some say it was
resurrected.

a2) the Koenigsberg ruling pointing out a second malfunction in
the MMAR to short out the CDSA prohibitions;

b1) the Frankel Foible that the Krieger ruling never takes effect
until the stay is lifted is contradicted by stay pending further
order of the Supreme Court of Canada not surviving the further
Final Order dismissing the case.

Those are the arguments I expect the Crown to try to deal with
here. Let's see how many they duck completely. Har har har. What
a tough job. So the Crown's response is at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/turmel/message/3552 to the
Sfetkopoulos ruling and this is my initial draft Reply. There's
going to be a lot of repetition of our key aces as I hone my
barbs.

CR: James Gorham

File No. 2484/08
                 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
Between:
                       Terrance Parker
                                                    Appellant
                             and
                    Her Majesty the Queen
                                                   Respondent

        SUPPLEMENTARY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
    (in the Appeal of the Order of Clements J. made Dec 7 2007)

CR: 1. I am writing in response to unsolicited post-hearing
submissions made by appellant's agent, Mr. Turmel,

JCT: How could it be "solicited" when I'm trying to bring it to
the judge's attention? And though rare, there's nothing wrong
with supplementary submissions when new facts arise, especially
when it was the Crown trying to buttress their case who
introduced the Sfetkopoulos case in the first place in their
Crown's July 11 2008 Respondent's Factum Point 6 in
http://yahoogroups.com/group/turmel/message/3460 Part B
(http://yahoogroups.com/group/turmel/message/3459 Part A)

So if Sfetkopoulos is important enough to this case to be
introduced by the Crown, it should be important enough for the
final result of that case to be taken into consideration, right?
And other goodies included therein that I raised? We have raised
the Crown's greatest fear, the (6-year like 2-year?) Gaudet
analogy, and is there anyone who thinks Justice Tulloch should
not be made aware of the Crown's greatest fear and the final
result on the Crown's greatest fear?

CR: concerning the impact of the recent dismissal by the Supreme
Court of Canada of the Crown's application for leave to appeal in
the matter of Sfetkopoulos v. Canada (Attorney General).(1)
((1)Attorney General of Canada v. Sfetkopoulos et al v. 2008 FCA
328 (FCA); affirming Sfetkopoulos v. Canada (Attorney General of
Canada), 2008 FC 33 (FC); Leave to appeal denied April 23 2009.)

The Appellant's supplementary submissions on this point are
completely unnecessary. Both parties addressed the impact of the
Sfetkopoulos decision in their respective oral submissions on Feb
17 2009.

JCT: I said it helped our case, the Crown said it didn't. Now I
say the Supreme Court ruling means we win, the Crown says it
doesn't. So is he saying that the three points I now argue "newly
buttress" Terry's case were already raised and presented in
earlier argument? Bet not. I'd never heard of Sfetkopoulos until
they brought it up. har har har har. I would have never searched
the Supreme Court archives for the Gaudet Goodie if they had not
brought it up.

CR: The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada changes
nothing relevant to this appeal.

JCT: It gets rid of the stay that was holding up the effect of
the decision, doesn't it? They were scared enough of the
Sfetkopoulos effect that they sought to have the dreaded effect
of the "6 like 2" Gaudet analogy stayed by a judge pending the
Federal Court appeal and then had the dreaded effect stayed again
by a judge pending the Supreme Court of Canada application for
leave to appeal. So we know what the Crown thought was being
stayed (6 like 2) even if they now argue the 6-like-2 effect
didn't have any effect unstayed anyway. If they were sure it
would have no effect, why did the Crown seek a stay?
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissal has changed the
circumstances. It has made the Crown culpable in knowing
continuing prosecutions while they know about 6 like 2. The Crown
says the change changes nothing. Appellant argues the change
changes everything.

The Crown has not informed the police nor the printers of the
Criminal Code of the Sfetkopoulos shorting of the MMAR and their
greatest fear that they're busting everyone under a shorted out
CDSA is now official. The Crown itself argued that if they lose,
Courts will be asked to declare the Gaudet Goodie, that it's been
6 years like it had been 2 years of shorted out prohibition. The
crown raised the feared consequences as a result of their loss
not being stayed now they have lost and argue it doesn't matter.
We merely claim the consequences the Crown itself laid out that
it feared have taken effect.

Here's where we can again attack the Crown as we catch them red-
handed in the act of letting cops keep busting people while they
know the stay of their worst fear has been removed! They know the
stay is gone and are doing nothing hoping the Tories can bring in
a new prohibition so we have to start all over again.

But now the stay is officially off and yet they've done nothing
to change for the past month! He's basically saying that what
they feared if the Sfetkopoulos decision was not stayed didn't
happen when the stay died with the Final dismissal on April 23
2009.

CR: 2. The Federal Court of Appeal's decision in Sfetkopoulos was
issued on Oct 27 2008 after the parties had filed their
respective facta in this appeal. However, both parties made oral
submissions in the hearing Feb 17 2009 concerning the impact of
the decision in Sfetkopoulos to this case.

JCT: So it was okay to bring up and make oral argument on new
Sfetkopoulos info after the parties had filed their facta but now
it's no longer okay to bring up and make written argument on new
Sfetkopoulos info after the parties had argued the other points
at trial?

The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Sfetkopoulos was issued
on Apr 23 2009 after the parties had made their respective oral
presentations in this appeal. And, both parties are now making
written submissions after the Feb 17 2009 hearing concerning the
impact of the decision in Sfetkopoulos to this case. So what's
wrong with me bringing in new info on paper like they did orally?

And we didn't have the Gaudet 6-year like 2-year analogy for a
period of "retroactive invalidation" then, did we? Actually,
their greatest fear was never so well put.

Nor the contradicting of the Frankel Foible by the expiry of the
analogous "stay pending further order" with the Final Order
dismissing their application for leave to appeal at the top
before now, did we? That really cinches the Krieger invalidation,
doesn't it?

And we didn't have the Beren decision where Koenigsberg J. found
another malfunction in the MMAR shorting out the prohibition.

CR: 3. The Federal Court of Appeal addressed only paragraph
41(b.1) of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR)
finding that provision unconstitutional.

JCT: And Beren addressed paragraph 54.1... And I pointed out that
if the J.P. Court of Appeal ruled the CDSA prohibition was
invalid when the MMAR exemption was flawed by 4 constitutional
malfunctions, then the Crown's greatest fear that the CDSA
prohibition has been invalid since the MMAR once again became
flawed by two or three constitutional malfunctions since 2003 has
now come true.

CR: The Court did not address the constitutional validity of
ss.4(1) of the CDSA

JCT: That's right. It's left to us to make the link between
shorting out the MMAR exemption that shorts out the CDSA
prohibition. What? Did anyone expect an Alan Young production to
go for the kill of the CDSA prohibition? Har har har. Court Clutz
Alan Young going for the gold? Har har. So what if the Alan Young
team of clutzy shysters didn't raise the Crown's greatest fear of
the J.P.-Hitzig invalidation link in their arguments? Har har. I
have. They left it to me to make the dreaded Gaudet Goodie that a
shorted out MMAR exemption means a shorted out CDSA prohibition.
Of course, finding it in the Crown's own words is bonus. Har har.

They're saying that because the link between shorting out the
master MMAR to short out the slave CDSA wasn't made by Court
Clutz Ganja Gilligan Young, the link can't be allowed by Terry?
Because the Professeur Saboteur didn't claim the Gaudet analogy,
Terry is not allowed to claim the obvious link? Har har. We'll
see.

CR: or the constitutionality of the MMAR scheme in general.

JCT: What, the Crown says we have challenge the whole MMAR in
general and find every malfunction therein even though the J.P.
Court of Appeal ruled that finding 4 Hitzig flaws was all it took
to short out the CDSA. Pretty silly argument, isn't it? So how to
get a laugh at the Crown's expense without being overly
insulting?

So though they admit Court J.P. court found that the 4 Hitzig
malfunctions were enough to short out the CDSA, they now insist
that Terry should find them all? Har har har har. Why do they
give me these silly canards to shoot down?

Because Terry's two, maybe three flaws in the MMAR are less than
the four flaws found in J.P., therefore Terry has to challenge
the whole scheme. The Hitzig Court didn't need to find every flaw
in the MMAR, it only needed to condemn the ones complained about
in 2003. It should work the same for Terry's 3 MMAR flaws this
time in 2009.

CR: As a result, the decision cannot result in the constitutional
invalidity of ss.4(1) of the CDSA as suggested by the Appellant.

JCT: For all these bogus reasons, the Sfetkopoulos short in the
MMAR cannot result in the shorting out of the CDSA? Har har har.
Though Alan Young didn't ask for the Sfetkopoulos short in the
MMAR to short out the CDSA, it doesn't mean that shorting out the
MMAR in Sfetkopoulos didn't short out the CDSA, it only means
that it hasn't yet been admitted because it hasn't yet been
asked.

CR: 4. The Federal Court itself has since recognized that the
decision in Sfetkopoulos does not invalidate the prohibition
against possession of marihuana.

JCT: This should be good.

CR: In the case of Edwin Pearson et al v. HMQ, Prothonotary Aalto
explained situation as follows:

JCT: Oh great, citing my saboteur and tormentor, the Right Rev.
Edwin Pearson of the Church of the Universe against us. He talked
Johnny Dupuis out of going on attack and the Crown tried to use
his emails to scuttle our Parker-Turmel-Paquette appeal at the
Big Five hearings. How's is this new loser case supposed to help
the Crown now?

CR: [16] In the wake of Hitzig, amendments to the MMAR were
issued by the Governor-in-Council. These amendments are the
subject of ongoing litigation before the Federal Court. On Jan 10
2008, Deputy Judge Strayer held that certain post-Hitzig
amendments to the MMAR to be unconstitutional (Sfetkopoulos 2008
FC 33). However the remedy granted was to find section 41(b.1) of
the MMAR of no force and effect (at para.25). Deputy Judge
Strayer's decision was stayed by Chief Justice Richard pending
the full hearing of the appeal before the Federal Court of Appeal
(See Canada v. Sfetkopoulos 2008 FCA 106). However, nothing in
the Sfetkopoulos decision suggests that section 4 of the CDSA is
of no force and effect.

JCT: Sure, there's nothing in Alan Young's Sfetkopoulos decision
suggesting that section 4 of the CDSA is of no force and effect
because he didn't ask, not because it didn't happen.

Terry has been given the honor of asking that the link be made
between any one of three short in the MMAR to short out the CDSA
and prove that when there is no constitutionally valid medical
exemption (shorted out circuit), there is no constitutional valid
marijuana prohibition! Because Alan Young didn't ask! Never has.
Never will.

CR: [17] In sum, while the earlier medical marihuana
jurisprudence (Parker, supra) did challenge the constitutional
validity of s.4 of the CDSA,

JCT: Actually, they didn't. Only Parker did. All of Alan Young's
medical cases sought shorts in the MMAR. We did not. We sought to
have the prohibition declared shorted out on Terry Parker Day.
Every time. All of us. But not one of the "reported-on" Alan
Young cases. They were always dealing with shorts in the MMAR but
never finishing the job by asking that the CDSA be no longer be
known to law since the MMAR short.

CR: the cases have shifted in their focus to the operation of the
medical marijuana supply regime codified under the MMAR.

JCT: The Alan Young productions have always focused away from
shorting out the CDSA prohibition to focusing on shorting out the
MMAR exemption without linking to the CDSA, but MedPot Engineer
prosecutions have always focused on shorting out the CDSA with
whatever short can be found.

CR: "And while the skirmishes concerning the MMAR are ongoing,
none of the jurisprudence concerning the MMAR has attacked the
underlying validity of s.4 of the CDSA." [Emphasis added]

JCT: None of the Alan Young - Narc Emery team have attacked the
underlying validity of the CDSA. So what? So what if the narc
moles never strike at the heart of the beast? It doesn't make the
heart of the beast off-limit to other shooters. Besides, all of
the the jurisprudence in Terry's going after his marijuana
searched and seized by Canada Post is about shorting out the CDSA
and the fact none of the other cases the Crown relies on have
failed to aim at shorting out the CDSA, so what? We are.

RC: 5. Prothonotary Aalto's decision was subsequently upheld by
Justice Hughes.

JCT: We agree with the Aalto and Hughes decisions that Court
Clutz Ganja Gilligan Alan Young did not attack the underlying
validity of the CDSA with his MMAR short. That's why Terry's
doing it. It's official, Young's crew didn't ask. It's not been
attacked until now by Terry. It's official. Court Clutz didn't
attack the CDSA. Imagine, using the Professeur Saboteur's failure
to strike at the heart of the beast as a reason to not allow
Terry to strike where no one has struck before.

CR: 6. The question of whether the decision in Sfetkopoulos
invalidates ss.4(1) of the CDSA was recently addressed by Justice
Frank in R. v. Long.

JCT: Another Pearson-inspired production for the Crown to rely
on. Pearson always left out the Krieger POLCOA and this is purely
about a legal technicality later proven wrong.

Imagine what kind of war I could have given them without all
these "our-team-losses" to buttress the Crown's case? Imagine if
Alan Young and Edwin Pearson had just stayed home? So let's see
how they're going to try to use the Long loser to hurt Terry's
case against the Gaudet analogy.

First of all, keep in mind that Long was straw horse case
analogous to the J.P. case out of Windsor in the Big Five
appeals. Terry was arguing that the CDSA was shorted out when the
MMAR malfunctioned by leaving him unprotected after his 1-year
exemption expired and suddenly, the JP case arose (Alan Young
ally Paul Burstein running the scam) that ruled that the CDSA was
shorted out whether it worked or not because it was only a policy
change by Government when it should have been statute change
enacted by Parliament, a technical flaw. Not whether it worked or
not.

The Ontario Court of Appeal later dismissed the J.P. flaw in the
MMAR saying the exemption policy only had to work, not be enacted
by Parliament and so the CDSA prohibition was not shorted out by
the J.P. technical short. So it's official, the CDSA was not
shorted out by the J.P. technicality. With the J.P. argument
thrown out, it sounds like CDSA was not shorted out, doesn't it?
So why was J.P. not retried and convicted?
Because Parker-Turmel-Paquette were part of the Big Five and we
asked asked that the prohibition be declared shorted out since
Terry Parker Day because it didn't work. The court replied that
yes it had not worked since Terry Parker and they were fixing it.
Justices Doherty, Goudge, and Simmons surreptitiously altered the
style of cause from "Appellant Parker, Respondent Hitzig and
others" to "Respondent Hitzig, Appellant Parker and others" thus
giving credit to Alan Young's Hitzig case in the law books for
the Terry Parker Day declaration of 2-year invalidity that Terry
Parker, not York University Professor Alan Young, had asked for.

So here again, in the Long case, Borenstein J. did not rule that
the CDSA is shorted out by an MMAR short, he ruled that the MMAR
is shorted to ground on the technicality that it had to be a
Parliamentary fix of legislation, not a Government fix of policy.
  Just like J.P. Same kind of thinking: Right Conclusion for Wrong
Reasons is dismissed therefore, Right Conclusion not right. And
of course, now they're going to argue that because the technical
short in the MMAR causing the CDSA short was disallowed, gee, it
must mean that the CDSA isn't shorted out by the other non-
technicality malfunctions in the MMAR circuitry.

CR: Mr. Long had been charged with the offence of possession of
marihuana contrary to ss.4(1) of the CDSA. As a preliminary
matter, he argued that ss.4(1) was constitutionally invalid as a
result of the amendments made to the MMAR governing access to
marihuana for persons with demonstrated medical need. Judge
Borenstein of the Ontario Court of Justice agreed, and dismissed
the charges.

JCT: Did Long argue "that ss.4(1) was shorted as a result of
shorts added to the MMAR governing access to marihuana for
persons with demonstrated medical need.

CR: Ontario Court of Justice agreed, and dismissed the charges.

JCT: Judge Borenstein ruled the CDSA prohibition was shorted out
because supply was enshrined by policy, not in law, whether it
worked or not, a technicality later thrown out by Justice Frank.

CR: 7. In an appeal by the Crown, Justice Frank of this Court
specifically considered whether the Federal Court of Appeal's
decision in Sfetkopoulos affects the constitutionality of ss.4(1)
of the CDSA.

JCT: Justice Frank specifically refused to take into
consideration any MMAR malfunctions, only the technicality.

CR: Justice Frank concluded that ss.4(1) is not invalidated by
the decision in Sfetkopoulos.

[continued...


JCT: She did not have any opinion on the decision in Sfetkopoulos
and specifically refused to take judicial notice of it. Let's
see.
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2008/2008canlii64390/2008canlii64390.html
is the decision of Justice Eva Frank:

COURT FILE NO.:  SCA132/07
DATE:  20081209
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N: Her Majesty the Queen Appellant
Lisa Csele, for the Appellant
- and - Clifford Long Respondent
Corbin Cawkell, for the Respondent
HEARD:  September 19, 2008, November 20, 2008

Frank J.
R E A S O N S  F O R  J U D G M E N T

J: [1] Section 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
(CDSA) [1] prohibits possession of marihuana. However, where its
use is for medical purposes, the Act provides an exemption.  That
exemption has given rise to a series of challenges across the
country regarding the constitutionality of the s. 4(1)
prohibition.

JCT: And non-constitutional challenges that the CDSA prohibition
is no longer known to law, dead, not bad.

J: [2] As a result of being charged with possession of 3.5 grams
of marihuana, Mr. Long joined the ranks of accuseds to attack the
constitutionality of s. 4(1). In his case, the challenge resulted
in the dismissal of the charge against him on the basis of the
trial judge's finding that s. 4(1) is unconstitutional.

JCT: Actually, it's no longer known to law once the Crown prints
the decision in the Criminal Code. Oh, right, they won't re-print
the code.

J: [3] The Crown appeals that dismissal. What the Court must
decide on this summary conviction appeal is whether the trial
judge erred in holding that the scheme in place does not provide
a constitutionally acceptable medical exemption to the criminal
prohibition.[2]

JCT: For a technical reason unrelated to other problems.

J: [4] For the reasons which follow, I find that the trial judge
erred in finding s.4(1) of the CDSA to be unconstitutional.

JCT: Because of a technical short. Keep it in mind while the
judge tries to forget.

J: History
[5] The Supreme Court has held the general marihuana prohibition
to be constitutionally sound.[3]

JCT: Okay, she's got the meaning of the Malmo-Levine case wrong,
just passing on the Bar party line that the Supreme Court ruled
marijuana prohibition was on when it only said that Government
had the power to turn it on. Not that it was on.

J: However, in Ontario that is constitutionality is dependent on
two conditions being met:
1. an adequate legislated standard for determining medical
necessity for those who seek to use marihuana for therapeutic
purposes;[4] and,
2. an accessible legal source of supply for those entitled to
possess marihuana for medical purposes.[5]

[6] In Parker, the Court of Appeal held that s. 4(1) of the CDSA
violated s. 7 of the Charter, as there was no constitutionally
acceptable medical exemption for those with a genuine need for
the marihuana.

JCT: Exemption circuit no work, S.4(1) circuit no work.

J: The Court declared the prohibition on marihuana possession
invalid, but suspended the declaration of invalidity for one
year.[6] The government responded by enacting the Medical
Marihuana Access Regulations ("Regulations").[7]

[7] The Court of Appeal considered those regulations in Hitzig.
It noted that the Regulations were intended to respond to the
Court's concern in Parker by creating a more transparent and
defined exemption process for eligible persons.[8]  However, the
Regulations were found to be inadequate,

JCT: Is she going to note that shorting the MMAR shorted the
CDSA?

J: in part, because they allowed for possession of marihuana
without providing for any legal means to obtain it or maintain
access to a reliable supply on an ongoing basis. The Court chose
not to strike either s. 4 of the CDSA or the Regulations in
response, stating that this would be an overly broad remedy.
Instead, it struck down certain discreet provisions of the
Regulations that circumscribed access to marihuana.[9]  With the
elimination of those provisions what remained was a
constitutionally acceptable medical exemption.

JCT: Is she going to note the 2-year period where the shorts in
the MMAR had shorted out the CDSA?

[continued...

JCT: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/turmel/message/3542 has
my submissions to Justice Tulloch on how the Sfetkopoulos ruling
helps buttress Terry Parker's S.24 claim for return of a
controlled substance after search and seizure by Canada Post.

This is the response of the Crown Attorney James Gorham:

File No. 2484/08

                 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

Between:

                       Terrance Parker
                                                    Appellant

                             and

                    Her Majesty the Queen
                                                   Respondent


        SUPPLEMENTARY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
    (in the Appeal of the Order of Clements J. made Dec 7 2007)

1. I am writing in response to unsolicited post-hearing
submissions made by appellant's agent, Mr. Turmel, concerning the
impact of the recent dismissal by the Supreme Court of Canada of
the Crown's application for leave to appeal in the matter of
Sfetkopoulos v. Canada (Attorney General).(1) The Appellant's
supplementary submissions on this point are completely
unnecessary. Both parties addressed the impact of the
Sfetkopoulos decision in their respective oral submissions on Feb
17 2009. The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada
changes nothing relevant to this appeal.
(1)Attorney General of Canada v. Sfetkopoulos et al v. 2008 FCA
328 (FCA); affirming Sfetkopoulos v. Canada (Attorney General of
Canada), 2008 FC 33 (FC); Leave to appeal denied April 23 2009.

2. The Federal Court of Appeal's decision in Sfetkopoulos was
issued on Oct 27 2008 after the parties had filed their
respective facta in this appeal. However, both parties made oral
submissions in the hearing Feb 17 2009 concerning the impact of
the decision in Sfetkopoulos to this case.

3. The Federal Court of Appeal addressed only paragraph 41(b.1)
of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) finding that
provision unconstitutional. The Court did not address the
constitutional validity of ss.4(1) of the CDSA or the
constitutionality of the MMAR scheme in general. As a result, the
decision cannot result in the constitutional invalidity of
ss.4(1) of the CDSA as suggested by the Appellant.

4. The Federal Court itself has since recognized that the decision
in Sfetkopoulos does not invalidate the prohibition against
possession of marihuana. In the case of Edwin Pearson et al v.
HMQ, Prothonotary Aalto explained situation as follows:

[16] In the wake of Hitzig, amendments to the MMAR were issued by
the Governor-in-Council. These amendments are the subject of
ongoing litigation before the Federal Court. On Jan 10 2008,
Deputy Judge Strayer held that certain post-Hitzig amendments to
the MMAR to be unconstitutional (Sfetkopoulos 2008 FC 33).
However the remedy granted was to find section 41(b.1) of the
MMAR of no force and effect (at para.25). Deputy Judge Strayer's
decision was stayed by Chief Justice Richard pending the full
hearing of the appeal before the Federal Court of Appeal (See
Canada v. Sfetkopoulos 2008 FCA 106). However, nothing in the
Sfetkopoulos decision suggests that section 4 of the CDSA is of
no force and effect.
[17] In sum, while the earlier medical marihuana jurisprudence
(Parker, supra) did challenge the constitutional validity of s.4
of the CDSA, the cases have shifted in their focus to the
operation of the medical marijuana supply regime codified under
the MMAR. "And while the skirmishes concerning the MMAR are
ongoing, none of the jurisprudence concerning the MMAR has
attacked the underlying validity of s.4 of the CDSA." [Emphasis
added]

5. Prothonotary Aalto's decision was subsequently upheld by
Justice Hughes.

6. The question of whether the decision in Sfetkopoulos
invalidates ss.4(1) of the CDSA was recently addressed by Justice
Frank in R. v. Long. Mr. Long had been charged with the offence
of possession of marihuana contrary to ss.4(1) of the CDSA. As a
preliminary matter, he argued that ss.4(1) was constitutionally
invalid as a result of the amendments made to the MMAR governing
access to marihuana for persons with demonstrated medical need.
Judge Borenstein of the Ontario Court of Justice agreed, and
dismissed the charges.

7. In an appeal by the Crown, Justice Frank of this Court
specifically considered whether the Federal Court of Appeal's
decision in Sfetkopoulos affects the constitutionality of ss.4(1)
of the CDSA. Justice Frank concluded that ss.4(1) is not
invalidated by the decision in Sfetkopoulos.

8. The same conclusion was reached by the Supreme Court of B.C.
in Ryan Poelzer v. Regina. Mr. Poelzer had argued that the
Federal Court of Appeal's decision in Sfetkopoulos renders the
offence of simple possession of marihuana unconstitutional. That
argument was rejected.

9. Finally, the Appellant suggests that the recent decision of
Justice Koenigsberg of the B.C. Supreme Court in R. v. Beren
(released without written reasons Feb 2 2009) supports his
contention that the "physician as gatekeeper" model is
unconstitutional. Quite the opposite is true.

10. It is clear from the following passage from Madam Justice
Koenigsberg's reasons, issued on or about April 7 2009, that the
requirement that a physician authorize a person's use of
marihuana for medical purposes is not a barrier to access:

[94] Returning then to the access issue in this case, the
applicant submits that this court should revisit Hitzig on the
facts before this court.  That raises the question of whether the
facts in this case engage the invitation in Hitzig to reconsider
whether the justification for physicians as gatekeepers has
become arbitrary.  In other words, is the risk or harm sought to
be prevented by the requirement outweighed by the risk or harm of
preventing access?

[95] The answer on the facts here has to be no.  Although some of
the requirements may cause some patients delay or even denial of
access for the relief sought, the potential harm to any seriously
ill patient where the authorized treatment for the illness and
the properties of marihuana may be contraindicated remain very
real and unstudied.  Further, these issues are essentially
medical issues and thus, while the drug remains unapproved and
research into its medicinal efficacy for any particular medical
condition is still preliminary, there is ample justification for
the requirement or hurdles to access set by the MMAR.

[96] Factually, the anecdotal evidence in this case supports the
proposition that it is becoming increasingly easy to obtain a
physician's support for a licence to possess marihuana.  Only one
witness before the court could not, by the time of trial, obtain
a physician's support, and she admitted that she knew of
physicians who were providing support for other patients but she
was choosing not to ask for herself.  She may have had very good
reasons for not so choosing, but it does not support the
proposition that such physicians are, in fact, unavailable.

[97] Thus, there is no factual foundation in this case to find
that access to physicians willing to provide necessary support
for the acquisition of a licence to possess has decreased since
2002 or 2003.  On the contrary, it would appear inferentially,
from the evidence before this court, to have increased.  Thus,
the MMAR provisions dealing with eligibility are not contrary to
fundamental justice and therefore are not in breach of s. 7.
There is no basis for this court to move beyond the decision in
Hitzig on this issue.

11. The Respondent submits that neither the recent decision of
the B.C. Supreme Court in Beren nor the decision of the Federal
Court of Appeal in Sfetkopoulos assist the Appellant in this
appeal and further submissions on the impact of these cases is
not warranted.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Dated at Toronto this 20th day of May 2009.
Per James Gorham
Of Counsel for the Respondent
Her Majesty The Queen

Jct: The government has fixed their problem, not.

>National Post
>New medical marijuana rules too strict, users say
>Canwest News Service
>Published: Tuesday, May 26, 2009

CW: TORONTO -- New federal regulations allowing designated
medical marijuana producers to grow cannabis for two approved
users of marijuana -- up from one -- are a "slap in the face,"
advocates said Tuesday. The changes, to be announced Wednesday,
come nearly 16 months after a Federal Court judge struck down the
one-to-one ratio as unconstitutional and unnecessarily
restrictive.

JCT: So now they can argue the law is back alive pursuant to the
Alan Young Hitzig resurrection theory until only two exemptees
per grower is challenged and proven to be unconstitutional too.

CW: Alison Myrden, who has been a vocal advocate for medical
marijuana users, said the changes are an "outrage" and run
contrary to the court's decision.

JCT: You can bet we won't be hearing about the true situation
from Alan Young's assistant Judas Goat Alison Myrden.

CW: "None of us will settle for this," Ms. Myrden said. "This is
so disingenuous of our government, because we are sick and dying
people. We'll have to go back to court again." The old
regulations restricted designated producers to growing cannabis
for no more than a single approved user of marijuana.

JCT: And after a few years when she wins the declaration that two
growers isn't enough, the Government can raise the number to 3.
And after a few more years, they can raise it to 4....

CW: Federal Court Justice Barry Strayer ruled in January 2008,
that the one-to-one restriction is "arbitrary," not "rationally
related to legitimate state interests" and violates the
principles of fundamental justice. Instead of amending its
regulations to permit larger-scale medical producers, Health
Canada appealed the decision.
The Federal Court of Appeal ruled against the government last
fall without asking to hear from lawyers representing 18 medical
users in eastern Ontario. The government then asked the Supreme
Court of Canada to hear an appeal. The top court declined to do
so, in a decision released on April 23.
It is estimated that more than 400,000 people in Canada use
marijuana for medical reasons, according to evidence presented in
a case in British Columbia.
However, less than 20% of the nearly 3,000 people approved to
smoke marijuana for medical reasons access it from the
government-approved supplier, because of complaints about the
quality.

JCT: So, no truth about the effect of the Sfetkopoulos ruling
from Young's Judas Goat team. Har har har har.
--

The Globe and Mail
TIM NAUMETZ
Change in marijuana limits prompts criticism
Cabinet recently approved the move in response to a Federal Court
ruling last year that struck down the previous limit of one
licensed patient per producer as a violation of the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms

GM: OTTAWA - The Canadian Press, Tuesday, May. 26, 2009

The federal cabinet has responded to an adverse court ruling by
increasing the number of medical marijuana users a licensed
grower may supply -- to two from one. The slight increase, to be
announced this week, has prompted fierce criticism from MPs and
advocates for the freer use of marijuana to alleviate symptoms
for a range of illnesses. Cabinet recently approved the change in
response to a Federal Court ruling last year that struck down the
previous limit of one licensed patient per producer as a
violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"From one to two patients, that's just insane," said Eric Nash, a
licensed Vancouver Island marijuana supplier under the Marijuana
Medical Access Regulations. Mr. Nash said he and his partner, who
cultivate organic marijuana through a company called Island
Harvest, have been limited to one patient each, despite several
hundred requests for help from approved marijuana users under the
regulations.

JCT: Of course, we're not going to hear about the law being dead
from a guy who hopes to profit from the law being alive.

GM: A Federal Court of Appeal judge ruled in January 2008, that
the limit of one patient per producer violated the right to life,
liberty and security of the person guaranteed by the Charter of
Rights. Mr. Justice Barry Strayer cited the government's own
statistics showing that the stringent limit on patients per
producer was forcing thousands of marijuana users to buy it
illegally, a further violation of constitutional rights. The
Supreme Court of Canada last month dismissed the government's
application for leave to appeal Judge Strayer's ruling.

The new regulation will not be published until later this month,
but a Health Canada spokesman confirmed the new limit is two
patients per licensed producer. "As a result of (the Federal
Court ruling), the government has moved quickly to address this
regulatory void and has modified the (regulations) to allow one
designated person to now produce marijuana for up to two
authorized persons," spokesman Philippe Laroche said in an email.
"This modification is currently in force."

New Democrat MP Libby Davies called the government response
"abysmal," arguing it will likely also be struck down by the
courts eventually.

JCT: Now everyone can sit back and see if 2, or 3, or 4 growers
is the right number. Har har har.

GM: She said Health Canada is aware thousands of medical
marijuana users are obtaining the drug through "compassion clubs"
that have proliferated over the years. But she and Mr. Nash said
those organizations must obtain their marijuana, which is not
regulated for quality or safety, from the black market. "From the
beginning, the federal government has been dragged kicking and
screaming into accepting the use of marijuana for medical
reasons," said Ms. Davies.

JCT: Okay, so now they can argue that the law is back alive if
they ever admit that it had died which they can't do without
dropping last month's charges. Still, there are 4000 bad busts in
the past month that Canada's defence lawyers can let their
clients plead guilty to. Har har har. Lawyers sure aren't the
human rights champions we see on TV, are they. Gutless wimps.

Anyway, we can still argue POLCOA, that Parliament has to enact
a new prohibition once the old one is struck down and that it
doesn't turn off and on. Prohibition Off on Tery Parker Day in
2001, On on Alan Young Day in Oct 2003, Off on Stupid Gimme Day
in Dec 2003, On on grow-for-2 day today. That's what lawyers
insist upon with the strict interpretation of criminal statutes.
Har har har har. The Jokers at Justice have screwed up again.
Except for the tens of thousands of new victims.

JCT: Just a reminder that over the past month since the
Sfetkopoulos ruling on the flaw making the exemption
unconstitutional, 4,000 to 5,000 have been busted under this now
for sure no-longer-known-to-law prohibition.
It's as if the Crown is laughing at the Courts. The Courts can
rule that a law is invalid but as long as the Ministry of Justice
doesn't print any changes in the Criminal Code to reflect those
decisions, the prosecution and defence bar and judges say they're
just going by the Criminal Code. Right? Isn't that their out?
Except that we've now told them about Sfetkopoulos and the Crown
own worst fears stated by Her Majesty's Crown Attorney Sean Gaudet

The Court in R. v. JP ruled that the combined effect of Parker
and Hitzig meant there was no constitutionally valid marijuana
possession offence between July 31 2001 and Oct 7 2003, the date
the MMAR were constitutionally rectified by the decision in
Hitzig. Courts may construe the Federal Court of Appeal's
decision as creating a similar period of retrospective invalidity
dating back to December 3 2003, the date that s.41(b.1) was re-
introduced into the MMAR."

JCT: Let's call this the Gaudet Goodie from now on and we'll call
David Frankel's admission that, but for a stay pending appeal
that somehow survived the dismissal of the appeal and the
dismissal of the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme
Court of Canada that still has to be "lifted," Section 7
cultivation and Section 4 possession prohibitions would have no
force and "in Alberta," this Federal Crown Attorney opines. Har
har har. I'll call this "stay pending appeal that still needs to
be lifted or the law is invalid" argument the Frankel Foible
because it surely is one lamentable weakness for a Federal Crown
Attorney to profess or make up.

But still, of these last 4,000 recently-busted people, imagine,
not one is filing a "no-longer-known-to-law" motion to prohibit
because it was suppressed by Alan Young who has misrepresented
the real win and Shannon Kari, CanWest's distortioning
presstitute. Imagine the thousands busted in just the past 4
weeks who don't know! Har har har har. Boy, will they be pissed
off when they find out. I hope.

Anyway, the Crown has responded to our added arguments about the
meaning of the Sfetkopoulos decision in Terry Parker's case
before Justice Tulloch for the return of his anti-seizure
epilepsy herb that was seized by Canada Post that has raised the
Gaudet Goodie, the Sfetkopoulos argument, (and now Koenigsberg
argument) as our final arguments that the Crown's worst fears
have come true; that this court will
- construe the Federal Court of Appeal's decision as creating a
similar period of retrospective invalidity dating back to
December 3 2003, the date that s.41(b.1) was re-introduced into
the MMAR;
- or worse earlier for various other reasons presented.

I can tell you that their arguments are really lame, really lame,
and I'm going to have fun parsing it and then filing my final
Reply.

But think of it, 4,000 busted people don't yet know because no
one but Alan Young and CanWest is telling them! Amazing example
of media distortion, isn't it? 4,000 should-be-angries if they
ever find out what the Crown was really worried Sfetkopoulos
meant about as they were still busting them under a 6-year
invalid law like the erred the last time I caught them for
busting people under the 2-year dead law they're now worried
might once again have happened. And if it weren't for our Judas
Professeur Saboteur on the media telling everyone it's not about
the prohibition being gone, they might have found out.

Anyway, I'm always staggered at the stakes I am a gambling. The
last time I was right about the law being dead for 2 years, that
cost 100,000 bogus busts and convictions even if they let the
last 4,000 off. This time I'm right about the law being dead for
the past 6 years, tha cost 250,000 to 300,000 bogus busts, even
if they again let the last 4000 off.

And think of the Crown lawyers who pulled it off. All those Crown
Attorneys who presented those bogus arguments while they kept
busting people are now exposed as again being wrong and again
having caused these incredible numbers of bogus convictions.

The guys who were wrong about the earlier 2-year error have blown
it again, right?

Wrote this on my break. Tomorrow for Crown's case

JCT: Couldn't help getting involved in this discussion:

http://iluvsa.blogspot.com/2009/05/financial-secession-from-tape-worm.html
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Financial Secession from the Tape Worm Debt Slave Economy: Local
Currencies
Posted By Andrea Murrhteyn at 5:44 AM

AM: Mitigation and Preparation for Peak Oil
Financially: Get out of Debt; Get Rid of Credit Cards, or use
them as Monthly Debit Cards, paid off in full.
Relocalize Money/Change the Way Money Works: Participate in Local
Currencies
Shop Locally wherever Possible: Secede from Addiction to the
MultiNational Debt Slavery Tape Worm Economy
Support Local Farming: Buy Local, Get involved in a Local Farmers
Market; or Start Your own Home or Community Vegetable Garden.
All of the above actions, are actions whereby you are directly or
indirectly Financially Seceding from the Financial Tape Worm Debt
Slavery Economy. Baby Steps to Financial Secession.

JCT: All of the above happen when you "participate in local
currencies."

AM: Secede and Relocalise your Finances: Local Currency Ideas
In A New Kind of Money, Peak Oil Dr. Doomer Julian Darley warned
in 2006 (excerpts):

JD: The decline in the availability of cheap energy is likely to
be accompanied by an equally ominous possibility of world
financial meltdown. That we are facing both of these threats now
is not an accident: energy and financial stability are intimately
linked. I believe the solutions for dealing with these twinned
threats are equally linked. To build an environmentally
sustainable, monetarily stable world, we need to create an
economy in which locally produced energy provides the backing for
local currencies.

JCT: And you can use fuel energy to back the money or human
energy (power times time) to back the money TOO.

JD: And here's the link to money: we have made the same limitless
assumption about money, that the world monetary supply could grow
without end as well. In both cases, we assumed that the growth in
energy-use and in money supply was an unmitigated good.
There have been a growing number of voices warning us that both
of these assumptions were wrong, that the notion of unchecked
growth was leading us toward environmental and financial
meltdowns. And while we have been making some progress in
understanding the energy problem, there is virtually no mention
of the role of money.

JCT: First of all, it's not the growth of money that's the
problem, it's the growth of debt beyond the money supply that
causes the automatic shortage of money called "poverty."

JD: I admit that thinking clearly about money can be difficult.
Money has been around far longer than the oil age, the industrial
era, and may even pre-date civilization itself. But though we may
take money for granted, it is neither simple nor solid nor
reliable -- far from it. Money is a complex and fragile
construction, and as history has shown over and over again, money
can become worthless almost overnight. In the long run, money has
proven very difficult to manage -- it's a tricky and strange
invention.

JCT: They didn't call it Mammon for nothing. Jesus said they
would "forever be hearing without hearing and seeing without
seeing or understanding" when it came to Mammon and what turns
ordinary poker chips into mysterious Mammon.

JD: The original driving force behind money was our need for
specialization as we grew from hunter-gatherer societies to
settlements of a few thousand, and now cities of millions. Money
helped us to increase our carrying capacity -- the number of
humans a given area will support at a certain level of technology
-- but it has also helped us to become largely disconnected from
the real material world.

JCT: Yes, a medium of exchange permits civilization to happen.

JD: Today's global monetary system is based on currencies
controlled by national banks, and the global trading system is
mainly based on one of those currencies: the US dollar. This
system leaves communities and individuals vulnerable to the
fluctuations of the global market.

JCT: Because they use a variable-value money. If they used stable
value poker chips backed by the collateral pledged, there would
be no fluctuations. Money can be run right.

JD: Money can be "backed" by all kinds of physical substances,
like precious metals.

JCT: Of human time.

JD: Or money can be "fiat" ("let it be made") like most national
currencies today, backed by nothing except faith and confidence -
- or sometimes just confidence tricks.

JCT: You can never say that "let the chips be made" "fiat" money
you can pay your taxes with is backed by nothing. It's backed by
tax payment.

JD: Unlike a backed currency, a fiat currency can at least in
theory quite literally expand for ever.

JCT: No it can't. It can only expand to whatever is paid for with
it. If King Henry built a lot bridges that year, he would have
printed and spent more tallies. Tallies were but a receipt for
labor provided to the king for the upkeep of the nation and
usable in payment of taxes. There is a finite limit if the
government runs the "fiat" currency, instead of private banks.

JD: As energy becomes increasingly expensive and scarce, the
colossal size and scale of our infrastructure, which has
characterized the rise of industrialism, will selectively crumble
and become unserviceable. It is only the energy subsidy from
hitherto ever-increasing use of cheap fossil fuels that has
allowed our current grandiosity. If this argument is correct,
national currency reform will become an oxymoron. It will become
apparent that local currencies must be created, currencies based
on the resources of the locale -- be they abundant or austere.

JCT: The big difference is that local currencies match the debt
because there's no interest. So the debt is always payable unlike
today's mort-gage death-gamble system where everybody borrows the
principal P but owe the principal + interest. P/(P+I) survive
their deathgamble and I/(P+I) get knocked out of their mortgage
into foreclosure causing Shift B inflation.

JD: Communities can further insulate themselves by de-monetizing
as many goods and services as possible and try to produce as much
of their vital needs as locally as possible, especially food
(from local farms and processors) and renewable energy.

JCT: Absolutely but they can't do any of it efficiently if they
don't set up the honest stable medium of exchange first.

JD: Demonetizing means taking a product or service out of the
market so that it does not need a monetary value. Hence the need
either to stop using a product or to produce it yourself.

JCT: There's nothing wrong with a monetary value in money units
that are stable.

JD: When you take a potato from your garden, if you are fortunate
enough to have one, you don't pay yourself a dollar for the
privilege -- you just clean it, cook it, and eat it. Demonetizing
can also be done via barter, and this is in fact quite common in
business, including in the industrialized world.

JCT: Sure barter is spreading as orthodox finance becomes
unavailable.

JD: But demonetizing flies in the face of globalization and the
Industrial Revolution.

JCT: Not demonetizing but remonetizing with a new currency flies
in the face of globalization.

JD: Communities that create such local or regional currencies
will have a much better chance both of riding out the coming
energy decline and of being buffered from any monetary or
economic collapse that may happen for whatever reason.

JCT: Absolutely, communities that create financial lifeboats do
have a much better chance of surviving a global shortage of cash.
And when their lifeboats use compatible time-based currency, they
can intertrade globally.

JD: The sooner such systems are created, the more ready that
region will be to withstand shocks and to avoid the terrible
unemployment which severe monetary instability invariably brings.

JCT: And luckily, there are many softwares available to do it and
more platforms on the way.
---

AM: There are predominantly two different kinds of Local
Currencies.

ONE: SCRIP:
Scrip is the Local Paper Currencies that thousands of Communities
created as their Local Currencies, to cope during the Great
Depression.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaXpNmrFZEM

JCT: Scrip is best because it provides a free market.,

AM: This is a BBC clip, covering recently created Berkshares
Scrip, in Great Barrington, MA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYc1u8eqhiM

JCT: Berkshares is a weaker community currency model. Only people
who have some cash already can use it and the discount received
confuses the real benefit of the currency.

AM: Other well known Scrips are Ithaca Hours, from Ithaca New
York. Who knows what Orania's local currency is called?

JCT: Ithaca Hours is an ideal system except they only trust
people with 4 hours of labor. It's like trying to run a poker
game with not enough chips, a silly limitation. Anybody should be
trusted for couple of weeks, or months or even years worth of
work, not a few Hours.

AM: Scrip Local Currencies are usually used by anyone in the
community who will accept them as payment for labour or services
rendered; or businesses that accept them for payment for
particular locally produced goods. The administration of the
Local Currency is determined by the people in that community, who
use it and participate in electing whomever they want to be in
charge of it.

JCT: Sure, we appoint a banker to handle the chips but we all get
to watch collateral going in for chips coming out and chips going
in for collateral coming out.

AM: Their benefits: They enable the trading of local services and
goods that a scarce financial instrument may restrict.

TWO: ELECTRONIC BARTER:
These are generally internet or electronically based Communities,
such as LETS (Local Electronic Trading System), or CES (Community
Exchange System).

JCT: LETS also permit the use of paper credits. They started
using paper IOU credits because it was a pain to keep having to
register every transaction on the central computer.

AM: The Problems with Conventional Money

It is partisan
Money as we know it is not a neutral service provided by the
government. Our money supply is created by private financial
institutions on a for-profit basis. This money system is designed
to benefit those who provide it, not those who use it.

It is based on debt
Money is created when banks grant loans. Thus for every unit
created there is one unit of debt.

JCT: Same for LETS. So it's not that LETS doesn't create its
units based on debt but that LETS doesn't have any interest to
make the debt grow beyond the money available to pay it.

AM: We are encouraged to think of it as a 'thing'
Money is essentially information and has no physical existence
yet banks encourage us to think of it as a 'thing' so that they
can 'lend' it to us and thereby make a profit by charging
interest. 'Thing' money also has to be created, distributed and
controlled so that there is not too much of it. It can also be
stolen, lost, bought, sold and counterfeited, with serious
consequences for everyone.

It is permanently scarce
The money to pay the interest on debt-money is never created.
There is therefore a permanent shortfall of money to pay back
both the principal and the interest.

JCT: Bingo. You've identified the flaw. People borrow P ($100)
and they all owe P+I ($110) so at the end of the game, 100/110
survive and 10/110 do not and suffer foreclosure.

AM: It causes cancerous growth
Banks continuously need to create more money than is required to
pay back their loans so that borrowers can pay back the interest
on those loans. This is the source of the growth imperative of
economics. There must be a continual expansion of bank credit or
else the economy goes into recession. Systemic growth leads to
the environmental problems we now all face.

JCT: All because of the usury, interest on money.

AM: Its value is based on its shortage
The shortfall of money keeps it valuable.

JCT: It's value is based on the collateral pledged. Keeping it in
short supply does increase its value.

AM: There only needs to be enough of it to buy back the goods and
services available. This has nothing to do with the monetary
requirements of people. Those who have none are not seen by the
market and so are marginalised.

JCT: Their only source of collateral, their time, is not
acknowledged as a standard of money, only gold and stuff.

AM: It is expensive
Every unit of conventional money is based on a unit of debt. This
debt has to be paid back with interest, and the interest on the
interest is compounding. Interest is built into the prices of
everything we buy, resulting in higher consumer prices.

JCT: Resulting in consumer prices higher than the money available
to buy them.

AM: It redistributes wealth from the poor to the wealthy
Usury is the tool used by the wealthy to suck wealth from the
poor and middle classes to the moneyed class. Parasitism and
class antagonisms are the result of this.

JCT: Taking from the poor to give to the rich is reverse Robin
Hood, the real reason Jesus became a debt-fighter.

AM: It promotes dishonesty and corruption
You can get it without delivering anything of value (e.g.
speculation, interest, gambling etc.) so people concentrate on
'making money' rather than producing/delivering anything of real
value. It is usually far easier to get money through dishonest
means than by honest work. When you have no money you have no
choice but to try and get it dishonestly

JCT: And it's easy to hide the loot. In an open information LETS,
there's nowhere to hide any stolen loot.

AM: It leaks away from where it is created
Conventional money knows no bounds and loyalty. It always leaks
away to the 'money centres' (financial centres, big businesses,
etc.)

It destroys local economies
Goods produced cheaper elsewhere replace locally produced goods.
This creates a local shortage of money and reduces the market for
local sellers. This also results in the irrational transportation
of goods all over the world, consuming precious fossil fuels and
creating pollution.

It destroys community
Dependence on money means we no longer need our neighbours. We
can get everything from anonymous strangers in return for money.
We have no obligation to anyone when the bills are paid. Every
trade is a complete and closed action: you provide me with
something and I give you money. End of story. No one does us any
favours and we need do no favours to anyone.

It fosters competitiveness

JCT: The mort-gage fosters competitiveness to the death.

AM: The shortage of money means we all have to fight for a share
of an amount that is too small to go around.

JCT: The death-gamble mort-gage works just like musical chairs
with more debt than money.

AM: The need to repay interest means that we have to eat others
to prevent ourselves from going under.

JCT: Bingo.

AM: It creates poverty
While it makes some super rich, it makes most people poor.
Poverty is caused by a lack of money (not by a lack of jobs).

JCT: A job is a paycheck and as long as people think they're
losing "jobs," something ephemeral, and not losing pay-checks

AM: Usury and the need to keep money scarce ensure that money
constantly moves to those who already have money.

JCT: Money tends to end up in the hands of the survivors.

AM: It causes social and cultural degradation
The elimination of local opportunities to exchange and relate to
one another focuses attention on ways of getting money outside
the community. Communities fall apart as they become indebted to
entities outside their communities.

JCT: Usury is a destroyer of civilizations throughout all our
history.
******

To conclude: Think about it. Participating in a Local CES
Currency System is going to benefit you, your family, your
community; and not only that: You will be making a Financial
Statement of Secession. You will be financially voting for
Secession!

JCT: Good advice and better if you set up your financial lifeboat
before your ship sinks.

Is the ANC going to be getting any VAT or tax benefits on your
labour, from labour that you exchange via a CES?

JCT: Paying tax on your barter earnings is easy because you have
more money left in your account you didn't have to use.

Posted by Andrea Murrhteyn
---

Andrea Murrhteyn said...
AM: King of the Paupers: Question: So hypothetically, if you
start a local currency pegged to the National Currency; what do
you imagine would be the factors to consider in unpegging it from
'RANDS' and repegging it to a Time Based Currency System?

JCT: Just print on your 1-Hour note how many GreenRands it's
worth. An Ithaca Hour = $10US. A Canadian Hour= $12. A British
Hour = 6 Greenpounds, a French Heure = 60 Greenfrancs, a German
Hour = 20 Greenmarks, etc.

20 May 2009 12:22 AM
Viking said...
maybe I've misunderstood this, but all currency is "fides"
currency is it not? and the more people that use (or trust) it,
the more stable and strong it is..

JCT: Currencies backed up by pledged collateral are commodity
based currencies, not fiat (only for taxes).

Viking: And it seems to me that local currencies etc would more
likely CAUSE a currency crisis than resuly from it. I find the
"problems with conventional money" part very misleading.

Jct: Bringing more poker chips into the game causes a crisis?

AM: Intrinsic Value of Currency:
A currency that has intrinsic value, in addition to 'perception
value' is stronger, and mroe stable. For example a commodity that
is finite. Like Gold. A currency that is pegged to a gold
standard (or any finite basket of commodities standard) cannot be
inflated at the will of the 'Central Bank'. They cannot just
print more and more money as they wish. They can only print as
much money as they have in gold reserves.

JCT: Same thing with the Time Standard. They can't print more
IOUs for time received than the time received.

Ron Paul: Can sound money give you financial security? There is
something very comforting in knowing that what you earn today
will retain its purchasing power in the years to come.

JCT: An hour of time buys only 59 minutes later?

RP: Indeed, the same silver dime that bought a loaf of bread in
the 1960's can still buy a loaf of bread with its precious metal
content - which is worth about $1.00 today. An ounce of gold has
always been about evenly exchangeable for a finely tailored men's
suit, which these days is roughly $800. And in these days of
fluctuating gas prices, when priced in gold, oil has been stable.
Meanwhile, since the creation of the Federal Reserve, the fiat
dollar has lost 94 percent of its purchasing power. The erosion
of purchasing power rapidly accelerated when it was completely
uncoupled from gold in 1971. -- Ron Paul, In Goverment We Trust.

JCT: The Gold Standard only benefits the gold bullion brokers. I
don't have any, do you?

AM: Local Currencies can cause a currency crisis, but generally
unless extremely badly managed, do so less than national
currencies.

JCT: I guess this is a concern about Shift A inflation, too much
money chasing the goods. Luckily, the world is suffering Shift B
inflation, same money chasing less goods after foreclosure.

AM: Plausibly, because it is much easier for local people upset
about mismanagement to effect change of the relevant officials
mismanageing their currency; than it is for citizens to effect
change at the national level, with those mismanaging their
currency.

JCT: Sure, it would be easier for locals to fix problems locally,
but interest-free chips don't cause problems.

AM: It also depends on what kind of 'currency crisis' you mean.

JCT: He must mean Shift A inflation, what else?

AM: I cannot read your mind, so have not the faintest clue, what
you find misleading about 'problems with conventional money'.

JCT: I don't see what he's getting at either.
---

Viking: as you say, currency has no intrinsic value, unless it is
backed up by precious metals. But we don't use the gold standard
anymore, for a lot of reasons - even gold has no intrinsic value
unless people want it. Thomas More raised the point in Utopia
about a society where gold had no inherent value.
The value of gold can be inflated and deflated, depending on what
you compare it to. Prices rose 400% in imperial Spain due to the
amount of gold pouring in from the Americas. It made them poorer,
not richer.
It is interesting from a philosophical view to compare an ounce
of gold to the price of a tailored suit. But compare say to the
difference in cost between lighting a dark room, say between 200
years ago and now. The ability to achieve this has been
dramatically reduced.
Anyway, the point is, nothing really has intrinsic value,
although a Marxist might say that labour does! Also, is an hour
of my time worth the same as yours? What if I am a surgeon and
you are a shoe polisher? hmmm.

JCT: A surgeon can command many Hours per hour while an unskilled
student hour can only command one. It works just like the real
money free market only better.

Viking: I find the list headed "problems with conventional money"
misleading because there is a list of 15 or so reasons why money
is bad, yet these reasons, while valid, can apply to everything.
For example, "Its value is based on its shortage" is misleading
only in that everything's value is based on its supply, not just
money.

JCT: Shortage is a pretty stupid reason for valuing your chips.

Viking: And secondly the phrase "Usury is the tool used by the
wealthy to suck wealth from the poor and middle classes to the
moneyed class. Parasitism and class antagonisms are the result of
this." uses ideologically loaded language, and usury is the
excessive charging of interest, not interest per se.

JCT: If you've fallen for the pretext that usury is when there is
too much death from the death-gamble but a little bit of death's
okay. No matter the interest rate, someone gets knocked out. It's
like saying that playing musical chairs with a lot of chairs
missing is bad but playing with only one chair missing is good.
Needless death is never good.
---

Viking: "Usury is the tool used by the wealthy to suck wealth
from the poor and middle classes to the moneyed class. Parasitism
and class antagonisms are the result of this." uses ideologically
loaded language, and usury is the excessive charging of interest,
not interest per se.

AM: Usury is a result of COMPOUND INTEREST.

JCT: No it's not. Interest is asking for an extra calf when
you've loaned out a herd of cattle. Usury is asking for an extra
piece of gold when you've loaned out only the principal. If the
demand creates a deathgamble, it's usury. If the demand is
payable because the principal has babies, it's interest. If you
think usury is excessive interest, why did Ezekiel condemn those
who exact usury or excessive interest? You've fallen for the
banksters' disinformation about what usury is.

AM: Namely the exponential increase of interest.

JCT: Even the linear increase of interest knocks people out of
the game into foreclosure and slavery.

AM: Very seldom are people encourage to ask themselves what money
is, what it does, why it works as it does, could it work
differently, etc. Economics: I come from the Austrian School: Von
Mises, Rothbard, Ron Pual, et al.  Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks.

JCT: The guys who think there's too much money in circulation
even though the shortage of money is evident to most.
---

Viking: A psychiatrist( I don't know any surgeons!) charges
R1,000 per hour, and someone who shines shoes probably makes 10.
This is 100 times greater, rather than 1.75 times as per your
example. This is a reflection of the many years of education it
requires to train one. I am not aware that anyone has come up
with a formula for figuring out the hows and why's, but we just
refer to it as market forces!

JCT: Yes, no one has figured out a formula for just pricing which
is why you offer your product at X and if no one buys, you offer
it at X-1, then X-2, etc. until it is sold and the market has
determined the fair price. If it's sold at X right away, try
selling the next one at X+1. If it's sold right away, try selling
the next one at X+2, etc. until no one buys then you're a touch
too high and it's time to back down 1. That's how the free market
determines your value, there is no formula.

V: The other problem with a gold standard is just the one you
hinted at - not just undiscovered quantities, but the the fact
that vast mineral resources are often located in countries you
really wouldn't want to see get rich - like Iraq! Places like the
Congo are immensely wealth in these terms and most European
countries aren't..

JCT: But human time is available to back up money everywhere.
---

Viking: And I do have a problem with printing money "on the
whims" of politicians - which is why I want central banks to be
independent. Countries that do this, like Mad Bob Mugabe's Zim,
have other problems, political not economic.

JCT: It's not politicians printing money that's the problem, it's
the politicians letting banks print money and borrowing it from
them and then taxing us to pay the banks interest that
politicians who printed it would not have to tax us to pay.

V: But if creating that much money is not enough to scare the
piss out of you, too,

JCT: If you think there's too much money because you don't know
about Shift B inflation...
---

Vanilla Ice said: Andrea. I think your argument is that in a new
world order there would be no financial risk. Sorry, but risk (as
measured by volatile markets) is what leads to return and I can
demonstrate this to you.

JCT: Sorry but in a new financial order, tallies = debts so
financial risk is zero.
---

Viking: People are not that dumb when it comes to money. Even in
medieval times - hardly an enlightened period- people checked the
metal in their coins to see if it was worth what it said it was;
and if it wasn't, they demanded more.

JCT: Except in England where people didn't check the Kings
Tallies which they knew could pay the King's taxes.

V: "People are not that dumb when it comes to money."

JCT: When it comes to money, Jesus actually did say that "People
are that dumb." What do you think he means while explaining that
he spoke about usury in parables because they will be "forever
hearing without hearing and seeing without seeing or
understanding." Money is Mammon, the mental trap that hypnotizes
people in chasing after a false God, more money savings for their
food, rather than God's Dividend, more food for their money. You
have to admit that Christ was pretty pessimistic about getting
people to understand how destructive of civilization the
impossible demand for more than was printed, usury, could be.

Andrea Murrhteyn said: Your question: How did you arrive at the
notion that inflation is not bad? appears to imply that you think
inflation is good? If that is your view, then I guess we
disagree. As I said, I ain't got a problem to agree to disagree.

JCT: What kind of thinking can come to the conclusion that your
poker chips losing their value is somehow good?

AM: I never said Credit Default Swaps or Derivatives had anything
to do with Inflation. Read the paragraph again. I said when they
unravel, a Financial shitstorm will occur, and those local
communities with local currencies will better survive.

JCT: Yes, those communities with local currency lifeboats will
better survive than those without. Makes sense.

Vanilla Ice said: Excessive inflation is widely accepted as not
being good, just as much as deflation is not considered good. But
inflation in the 0-3 percent range is fairly benign.

JCT: So having our poker chips lose 3% of their value is fairly
benign? Sure it doesn't rip us off for much, a measly 3%, but why
suffer a rip-off at all if you find out how to run your chips
inflation-free?
---

Viking: I also think that with the financial scaremongering, you
are going to fall into the classic Prophet's Dilemma; If you're
wrong, you're a fraud, and if you're right - nobody care because
they're too busy having a crisis!

JCT: You presume people are going to stay stupid forever. Look
around and you'll see the world is waking up to the do-it-
yourself interest-free community currency solution.
Why represent our wealth with their chips for a fee?
When we can represent our wealth with our chips for free?

JCT: I've had to completely redo my
http://johnturmel.com/mpforms.htm page since they've issued new
Criminal Proceedings Rules at in October 2006
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/scj/en/about/rules/rules.htm#part4
so these are the rules we are going to have to follow.

RULE 43 EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIES [Code, s. 774 ff.]
APPLICATION OF THE RULE
43.01 This rule applies to applications in criminal matters by
way of certiorari, habeas corpus, mandamus, procedendo and
prohibition, including applications to quash a subpoena, warrant,
conviction, inquisition or other order or determination and
applications for discharge of a person in custody.

TO WHOM APPLICATION MADE
43.02 Applications made under rule 43.01 shall be made to a judge
of the court in the region, county or district in which the
proceedings to which the application relates have been, are being
or are to be taken.

JCT: We're basically using the rules for application from section
6. So here's section 6 rules for applications:

http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/scj/en/about/rules/rules.htm#part2

RULE 6 APPLICATIONS
APPLICATION OF THE RULE
6.01 (1) Where the Criminal Code or other federal enactment to
which the procedural provisions of the Criminal Code apply,
authorizes, permits or requires that an application or motion be
made to or an order or determination made by a judge of or
presiding in the superior court of criminal jurisdiction, or a
judge as defined in s.552 of the Criminal Code, other than a
judge presiding at trial upon an indictment, the application
shall be commenced by a notice of application in Form 1.
[Effective October 16, 2006]

JCT: They don't have a link to the form. Har har har. Not so
funny. Have to look.

(2) Rules 6.01 to 6.11 apply to all proceedings commenced by a
notice of application, except where these rules expressly provide
otherwise, or a judge of this court orders otherwise. [Effective
October 16, 2006]

APPLICATIONS -- TO WHOM TO BE MADE
6.02 Applications shall be made to a judge of the court in the
county, district or region where the criminal proceedings to
which the application relates are being or are to be heard.
[Effective October 16, 2006]

CONTENT OF NOTICE
6.03 Every notice of application in Form 1 shall state
(a) the place and date of hearing in accordance with Rule 6.02
and any other applicable rule;

JCT: And you have to get this from the registrar of the court
when you book your time for your hearing.

(b) the precise relief sought;
(c) the grounds to be argued, including a reference to any
statutory provision or rule to be relied upon;
(d) the documentary, affidavit and other evidence to be used at
the hearing of the application; and

JCT: Luckily, there is no personal information necessary by way
of affidavit. Unless it's guys seeking release pending appeals
since Sfetkopoulos. But that's a different form.

(e) whether any order is required abridging or extending the time
for service or filing of the notice of application or supporting
materials required under these rules. [Effective October 16,
2006]

JCT: We build in a catch-all asking for any order necessary to
get the hearing on track.

SERVICE OF NOTICE
General Rule re Service
6.04 (1) The notice of application shall be served on all parties
in accordance with Rule 5 and, where there is uncertainty whether
anyone else should be served, the applicant may make a motion
without notice to a judge for an order for directions. [Effective
October 16, 2006]

JCT: Those seeking prohibition of their charges only have to
serve their Crown Attorney's office.

Filing Proof of Service
(2) The notice of application in Form 1 and any other supporting
materials required by the Criminal Code, other statute or these
Rules, or ordered by a judge of the court, together with proof of
service, shall be filed in the office of the clerk of the court
in the place where the application is to be heard, not later than
thirty (30) days before the date of the hearing of the
application, unless otherwise ordered by a judge of the court, or
unless Rule 20.04(1) applies. [Effective October 16, 2006]

JCT: We file our whole Application Record right at the beginning
with way more than 30 days notice to the Crown.

MATERIAL FOR USE ON APPLICATIONS
Application Record
6.05 (1) Unless otherwise ordered by a judge of the court or
otherwise provided by these Rules, an applicant shall serve on
every other party and file an application record in accordance
with Rule 6.05(2), not later than thirty (30) days before the
date of the hearing of the application. [Effective October 16,
2006]
(2) The applicant's application record shall contain, in
consecutively numbered pages arranged in the following order;
(a) a table of contents describing each document, including each
exhibit, by its nature and date and, in the case of an exhibit,
by exhibit number or letter;
(b) a copy of the notice of application;
(c) a copy of the indictment to which the application relates;

JCT: A copy of the Information is enough.

(d) a copy of all affidavits and other material served by the
applicant and any party other than the respondent for use on the
application;
(e) a list of all relevant transcripts of evidence in
chronological order, but not necessarily the transcripts
themselves; and

JCT: Luckily, we don't have any transcripts to slow anything
down.

(f) a copy of any other material in the court file that is
necessary for the hearing of the application. [Effective October
16, 2006]

JCT: This is the catch-all that permits everything.

Respondent's Application Record
(3) Where the respondent seeks to rely on material other than
that filed by the applicant, the respondent shall serve on every
other party and file a respondent's application record in
accordance with Rule 6.05(4), not later than ten (10) days before
the date of the hearing of the application. [Effective October
16, 2006]

JCT: They're usually late and often, they serve it the day before
the hearing. I remember the Johnsons' case where he was served
the night before!!!

(4) The respondent's application record shall contain...

Documents may be Filed as Part of Record
(5) Any documents served by a party for use on an application may
be filed, together with proof of service, as part of the party's
application record and need not be filed separately if the record
is filed within the time prescribed for filing the notice or
other material. [Effective October 16, 2006]
Transcript of Evidence

JCT: Yeehaa! Finally. I always used to bundle my Factum into the
Application Record and had some uppity clerks make me take it out
and file it separately, a silly procedure when including it in
the Record was so logical. So now, all documents now go into one
booklet.

(6) A party who intends to refer to a transcript of evidence at
the hearing of an application shall file a copy of the transcript
as provided by Rule 4.08. [Effective October 16, 2006]

Books of Authorities
(7) Unless otherwise ordered by a judge of the court, books of
authorities in accordance with Rule 32 are required and shall be
served and filed in accordance with the time limits described in
Rules 6.05(1) and (3). [Effective October 16, 2006]

JCT: And those few authorities we use can again be filed in the
one Record Booklet.

Factums
(8) Unless otherwise ordered by a judge of the court, or required
by these rules, factums are not required for applications made
under this rule. [Effective October 16, 2006]

JCT: And Factums that had to be filed apart now don't need to be
filed at all!!

(9) Where a judge orders or these rules require that factums be
served and filed on an application, the factums shall comply with
Rule 33 and be served and filed within the time limits described
in Rules 6.05(1) and (3), unless otherwise ordered by a judge of
the court. [Effective October 16, 2006]

JCT: We've had this happen before, again in the Johnson case,
where the judge demanded he prepare a Factum though the arguments
were included in the Notice. So because a judge can demand the
argument be in a factum, but since I can now officially include
the factum in the Record, I'm going to forestall that problem by
moving the argument to the factum within the Record.

THE HEARING OF APPLICATIONS
Place of Hearing
6.06 (1) Unless otherwise ordered by a judge of the court, an
application to which this rule applies shall be heard and
determined by a judge of the court in the county or district in
which the trial or other proceedings to which the application
relates are being or are to be held. [Effective October 16, 2006]
Date of Hearing
(2) Unless otherwise ordered by a judge of the court,
applications shall be heard on a date and at a time fixed by the
Registrar on notice to all parties or their solicitors of record.
[Effective October 16, 2006]

JCT: So you have to book your hearing, put the time and place in
the Notice before serving your Application Record.

EVIDENCE ON APPLICATIONS
General Rule: Evidence by Affidavit

JCT: There is no evidence to be adduced. This is an issue of pure
law.

You know I try to keep these Applications Records down to a
minimum. I could include all the three JP cases, the Chen
decision, but using the Crown's own words seems easiest, whether
for the Krieger invalidation of the law or the Sfetkopoulos
acknowledgment of invalidation pursuant to JP.

Right now, the whole application used be about 25 pages in all.
Maybe I'll just add the Supreme Court of Canada final order
dismissing Sfetkopoulos and the Crown's Gaudet Goodie statement
like I used Frankel Goodie statement in Krieger. Two of our
documents are Crown statements!

And of course, I have to update my release pending appeal kits.
They can get out a lot faster now with the Sfetkopoulos added to
the other arguments. I was always amazed at how few people helped
get their friends out after I'd gotten Ray Turmel in Quebec
and Mike South in Ontario both released pending appeal. Maybe a
third guy in Montreal.

Still, it would be a coup to empty the jails with my Appeal Late
because when my stupid lawyer let me plead guilty we didn't know
the law was going to be later declared dead.

JCT: Too bad Ron Paul Jr. (B.J. Lawson) can't talk Ron Paul Sr.
into running a time-based community currency on his supporter
databse to solve the nation's poverty problem. I was over at
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/92236 to find this story:

Economic Casualties Pile into Tent Cities
Posted May 7th, 2009 by Michael Nystrom


Multimedia presentation at USA Today - 9 Pictures

Article - Economic Casualties Pile into Tent Cities

Snip:
>Marshall is among a growing number of the economic homeless, a
term for those newly displaced by layoffs, foreclosures or other
financial troubles caused by the recession. They differ from the
chronic homeless, the longtime street residents who often suffer
from mental illness, drug abuse or alcoholism.
>For the economic homeless, the American ideal that education and
hard work lead to a comfortable middle-class life has slipped out
of reach. They're packing into motels, parking lots and tent
cities, alternately distressed and hopeful, searching for work
and praying their fortunes will change.
>"My parents always taught me to work hard in school, graduate
high school, go to college, get a degree and you'll do fine.
You'll do better than your parents' generation," Marshall says.
"I did all those things. . For a while, I did have that good
life, but nowadays that's not the reality."

Kindling for the Revolution, friends. People only change when
they're forced to, and the growing number of homeless are being
forced to wake up to reality.

JCT: The reality that their poverty could be engineered almost
overnight? Say every person including children open a timebank
account on Ron Paul's computer with a 2000 Hour credit line worth
$20,000 U.S. Greendollars and send:
- 500 Hours ($5,000) to municipal government in pre-paid tax,
- 300 Hours ($3,000) to state government in pre-paid tax,
- 200 Hours ($2,000) to federal government in pre-paid tax,
Then offer to work for any level of government that has those
newly-created credits each and everyone one of you created
yourselves.  Oh, by the way, keep:
- 1000 Hours ($10,000) to rent or buy an interest-free house.
You'd be amazed how little a house costs when you only pay for
the depreciation on the house and not the interest on the money.

Now if you were all really smart, you'd trust everyone with a 10-
year 20,000 Hour ($200,000) credit line and:
- send 5,000 Hours ($50,000) to municipal in pre-paid tax.
- send 3,000 Hours ($30,000) to state in pre-paid tax.
- send 2,000 Hours ($20,000) to federal in pre-paid tax.
- keep 10,000 Hours ($100,000) of financial cushion to work with.
Local, state and federal governments will really be able to put
a lot of people to work at doing useful stuff if you trust that
each individual can redeem 10 years' worth of owed time over a
50- or 60-year career. I certainly would. And if they have any
they can't use, they should make the banks accept it and pay down
their debts.

In an ideal world, each fetus would be granted at least a 60-
Year but probably open credit line with society's maximum
resources at their command. But that'll be the financial system
the day we call dirt (Earth) "Eden" again.

No more TV begathons for each of the myriad diseases when each
person has an open credit line for medical care, open credit for
food, work-clothes, accommodations but a restricted credit line
for yachts unless there's a yacht no one wants to buy so you can
have it if you can stand being billed for the depreciation.

Of course, giving everyone 60 Years worth of time-credit would
permit pre-paid taxes to probably pay off the national debt,
state and municipal debt. The rich get paid, the poor stop paying
interest.

So pre-paying taxes with new community currency gives your
community, state, nation, the currency it can use to give you a
job and multiply jobs in the private sector with great velocity.

What smarter legacy could Ron Paul invest any contributions that
may remain than to use them not to get re-elected but to
establish a national community currency everyone can then use to
contribute to getting him re-elected in time-money, forever.

Love the man but when it comes to currency systems, he's got to
be brought into the 21st century and accept that time is as good
as gold. Time is money.

JCT: Sarah Cornwall sure cheered me up today:

http://revolution2009uk.blogspot.com/2009/05/money-creation-and-banking-solution\
s_7504.html

Saturday, 9 May 2009
Money Creation and Banking Solutions

Countries are going bankrupt all around the globe. Orchestrated
of course. The International Banking Cartels are taking every
last penny, every last bit of property and finally they will own
you outright when you need to eat. Then we will truly be slaves,
when we graft for food. When we are forced to sell our souls for
a loaf of bread.

JCT: That's why I called my anti-usury party the Abolitionist
Party of Canada in honor of the Abolitionists of the metal chains
as we work on finishing the job of getting rid of the invisible
debt chains.

So we all know that the current Central Bank, IMF, World Bank,
privately run or owned corruption racket has to go. We've read
all the stuff and watched all the videos and have a pretty good
idea of what we don't want.

JCT: Actually, 99% of money reform videos have errors that steer
people away from the solution. There are those who believe
inflation is too much money chasing the goods, Shift A inflation,
so they'll never see that the solution to the same money chasing
less goods, Shift B inflation, is more money for the penniless
masses, not less money. Then there are those who believe that the
problem is that the money is based on debt but LETS timetrading
systems are based on debt of those who owe time to others who
worked first and cause no trouble. As the world's only banking
systems engineer, I've been trying to teach the banking system
blueprint for years but once a money reformer thinks he's got it
right, it's hard to get them to see another angle.

Or at least who we don't want to run the show. But what about a
system of transaction (money) that we do want? Who will create
it? How will it operate? How will it be backed? Do we even want
money?

One solution could be to simply outlaw usury?

JCT: Yes, that would make money work right and obey the
prohibitions against debt enslavement in all good religions.

This would solve nearly all the problems our current system
harbors. If no one could make money (interest) from lending and
creating money out of thin air (chuckles at the insanity) doesn't
that immediately cut off the head of the beast?

JCT: I don't mind the banker getting paid for creating and
running the chips. Again, bankers getting paid isn't the problem,
only the demand for more than was created, the usury, is.

It would not be profitable any longer to trade in money. This is
not a new idea at all. Central banks and interest payments are
what the banking elite are forcing on other countries as we
speak. The banking elite need new markets. Once you have
exorbitant loan interest for the property you buy or the business
you start you are vulnerable and at the mercy of those banks who
can call in that loan, sell it on or take your property from you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury

JCT: I define interest as on something that has babies and can be
paid and usury as interest on something that has no babies and
causes a death-gamble mort-gage among its participant who all
borrowed P Principal and all owe Principal + Interest. P/(P+I)
survive while I/(P+I) fail and have their collateral confiscated
resulting in Shift B inflation, same money chasing less goods
after foreclosure.

It is this relatively new way of trading in money that makes it
far more important than it really has to be. This is how it
becomes a tool of power and control. Not money in itself but the
buying and selling of it at exorbitant and crippling interest
rates. If we are to succeed in bringing the banking elites to
their knees we need to back a solution or two. Taking back the
power to create our own money is the first step to rid these boys
of their power.

JCT: Bingo. Why represent our wealth with their chips for a fee
when we can represent our wealth with our chips for free?

Here are some ideas to think about. The current system is being
brought down only to be replaced by the same but now
international system which they will tell us its new, different,
a change! Our only 'hope'. Its not and we need to be thinking of
alternative solutions:

Monetary Reform Party
http://moneyreformparty.blogspot.com/2009/04/why-money-reformers-are-cranks.html

JCT: I checked and they make the mistake of wanting 100% money
backing up loans. LETS is a zero reserve system needing no old
money in order to issue new chips. Sad to see a flawed reform
being pushed. Plus, nothing about the positive feedback
instability on the debt.

Libertarian Party UK
http://lpuk.org/pages/manifesto/economy/monetary-reform.php

JCT: I was rejected by the Libertarian Party of Canada for
promoting the abolition of interest. They argued people should
have the freedom to lend at interest. No one should deter the
liberty to enslave their neighbors. Actually, I never said I'd
prevent the neighbors from lending their money at usury as long
as the borrower has the option to borrow interest-free from the
national bank. If the borrower prefers to pay interest, then he's
too stupid for us to protect and may the loanshark enjoy the
sucker's money.
Besides, they think banks keep a reserve ratio and "lend out the
remainder" which is completely wrong.

Local Exchange and Trading Systems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Exchange_Trading_Systems

JCT: As one of the two founding LETS engineers, I'm pleased to
see you pushing the ideal model. Now take a look at the UNILETS
resolution at the UN for the world-wide model.

Community Banking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_Union

JCT: Since credit unions are piggy banks, needing old money in
order to lend, I can't see them as a solution to not enough
money.

The problem is not money itself but who has the power to create
it, how that is managed, what it is backed by and whether what it
is backed by, is something that can be hoarded, manipulated and
used as ransom over people. So even if we are to take back the
control of the money supply we still have to think carefully
about how we are going to run the system and what is going to
back it.

JCT: Been there, done that.

Please bear in mind, gold, resources, goods in general
can all be controlled. Food, technology, you name it. Even
without cash these things can be hoarded for their own power and
used against us. That is why I am not in favor of a gold backed
currency. Who owns the gold?

JCT: Agreed. Only gold bullion brokers profit from the Gold
Standard.

So can a currency be backed by value added to a community?
Whether that is by injecting additional money into the system
when new individuals are born, or when infrastructure is added to
the community, roads, bridges etc, or when economic migrants come
here, or anything that adds VALUE. For that we need to see that
human beings are more valuable than precious metals. If we back a
currency by how many people there are in society, instead of how
much gold we have, the measure of success is by how many people
want to live here, we transfer value from money to the
individual.

JCT: Not by how many people in the community but by how much time
at work can be pledged.

Take a look at LETS scheme, with a made-up currency that is used
to trade goods. Sound familiar? Only there is no system of debt
and interest.

JCT: Yes there is no interest but no, there is debt. The hour you
work for me is owed back to you. It's called a commitment but
it's a debt, a social debt, not the anti-social bank debt that
grows by itself.

You can only keep the people in the system if the system is
useful to them, if it is not they will join another system. Get
my drift? A small amount of extra money is added to the pot each
time a new member joins, to get them started and trading and thus
injecting new life into the society.

JCT: These dinky toy models where everyone starts with 4 Hours
($40 US) worth of money have almost no effect. There's too little
currency to do any big deals. People should be trusted with a
couple of month's worth of work, $4000 US, not a few hours.

It invigorates it and the value is placed on the new member not
just on the cash they have. By putting value on the individual it
allows for a corresponding growth in the economy.

JCT: But far too little to have much effect. I can imagine many
people spending their few Hours then having to wait to find
someone to earn some from before being able to invigorate the
local economy some more.

So money is not evil, evil banking interest-charging elites are.
Money is simply a form of transaction, which could be based on a
system of trust, recognizing the value of people over resources
and one where usury has no place. Why would we need to borrow
money anyway? In a LETS system we just go into the red but with
no harsh penalties just some gentle encouragement to balance it
out. It seems to work. Trust the individual. We love it and
generally we come shining through. If not who cares, its no
longer such an issue. Its just numbers on a transaction sheet!

Otherwise Credit Union banking can provide low interest loans for
individuals. A local system that works well. We already have
working solutions that could be taken up by our government
instead of them trying to constantly hide the fact that we were
sold out a long time ago and have become slaves to the
bankers/debt/interest merry go round. Credit Unions work on a
system of trust rather than a credit check or ability to pay
scenario. Loans can get bigger in size as the smaller ones get
paid off. We earn trust from the lender.

JCT: But piggy bank models need cash to start. LETS-style poker
chip models do not.

Banking practices are the problem not individuals, not money
itself. The people who own the system make the rules. Isn't it
time we changed those people and those rules?

Lets, no pun intended, reclaim control of the monetary system and
replace it with something a lot more user friendly instead.

The answers to this life are more simple than we think.
Hopefully some food for thought.
Posted by goldylocksuk at 06:55

1 comments:
goldylocksuk said...
I am not advocating some hippy kind of LETS scheme but rather
showing that our current monetary system could be reclaimed and
run on the same lines.

JCT: Thanks for that.

I have also recently been informed that potentially Credit Unions
have been infiltrated by the group Common Purpose and aren't
perhaps as trustworthy as they appear on the surface. Again I am
not advocating Credit Unions but rather the system of trust and
the nominal interest charges on loans. As for the Monetary Reform
Party, I do not advocate a single issue party, I am merely
highlighting the debate with this link. Ultimately there is in my
mind nothing that the LPUK does not tackle on the issue of
governmental responsibilities and I will be backing them all the
way to Parliament. 09 May 2009 08:56

JCT: I always found that the leaders of the no-answer parties are
bankster moles keeping their party on the wrong track. I doubt
you'll have much more success in getting the Libertarians to stop
supporting the liberty to enslave with debt than I did.

But I'm still pleased to see you on the job. Keep pushing.

Canadian Police Association
Suite 100 141 Catherine Street Ottawa, ON  K2P 1C3
Tel: 613.231.4168 Fax: 613.231.3254
e-mail:  cpa-acp@... Website: www.cpa-acp.ca

This letter dated May 8 2009 is to inform you of the decision of the Supreme
Court of Canada dismissing the Crown's appeal against the Sfetkopoulos ruling
that the Marijuana Medical Access Regulations have been unconstitutional since
2003. In the Crown's own words:
The Court in R. v. JP ruled that the combined effect of Parker and Hitzig meant
there was no constitutionally valid marijuana possession offence between July 31
2001 and Oct 7 2003, the date the MMAR were constitutionally rectified by the
decision in Hitzig. Courts may construe the Federal Court of Appeal's decision
as creating a similar period of retrospective invalidity dating back to December
3 2003, the date that s.41(b.1) was re-introduced into the MMAR."
I am informing you officially so that if you do not cease and desist all
marijuana arrests and prosecutions, you can be cited as having knowingly
violated the rights of those victims still being charged as of this date.
John C. Turmel
See my videos on Sfetkopoulos at http://youtube.com/kingofthepaupers

CC: Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
Minister of Justice

John C. "The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel, King of the Paupers, Great
Canadian Gambler, Author of the UNILETS interest-free time-based currency United
Nations C6 recommendation to Governments in the
http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm See http://johnturmel.com

JCT: The CRTC just handed down its ruling on my complaint about
being denied an equitable share in a political debate for
exhibiting my party badge. But first, we were waiting for the
Court decision on the complaint:


Court File No: A451-07
                   FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

Date: 20081217
Citation: 2008 FCA 405

CORAM: LETOURNEAU J.A., NOEL J.A., BLAIS J.A.

BETWEEN:
                        John C. Turmel
                                                    Applicant

                             and
                Canadian Radio-Television and
                Telecommunications Commission
                                                   Respondent

                       REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LETOURNEAU:

[1] Mr. John C. Turmel who is self-represented seeks by way of
judicial review a declaratory relief against respondent.
[2] The facts underlying the applicant's demand can be summarized
as follows.
[3] Mr. Turmel was an independent candidate in the 2007 Ontario
general election. On Sop 18 2007, he participated in a debate
program hosted by Rogers Television (Rogers) for six candidates
of the riding of Brant.
[4] Mr. Turmel wore a button showing his party affiliation. He
was required to remove his button by the moderator, which he did.
subsequently removed from the debate because, according to
Rogers, he interrupted a fellow candidate.

JCT: Keep in mind, I was talking within my minute after Fuhrer
Philp had interrupted me. Ignore that and it could be said I was
interrupting the next guy using the minute I had been denied.

[5] Six days later, he complained to the respondent, alleging his
removal from the debate violated his equitable share of the free-
time partisan political broadcast required by the CRTC
regulations.

[6] A staff member of the respondent informed Mr. Turmel that the
respondent was seeking a response from Rogers and requesting that
Rogers keep a tape of the broadcast in question.

[7] By the same occasion, Mr. Turmel was informed that his
complaint would be placed on the public file at the end of three
weeks unless he objected. Failing an objection, the matter of the
complaint would be dealt with by the respondent during license
renewal time or by interested parties. He did not object to this
process proposed by the respondent.

[8] On October 1 2007, Mr. Turmel wrote to the respondent
requesting it compel Rogers to give the applicant an equitable
share of time before Election Day. However, three days later, on
Oct 24, he brought the issue before this Court by seeking an
order in the nature of mandamus against the respondent. The
application was dismissed by Decary J.A. on  Nov 5 2007.

[9] After a review of the facts, the parties' submissions and the
law, I have come to the conclusion that this application for
judicial review should be dismissed.

[10] The first difficulty encountered in these proceedings
originates from the fact that the respondent rendered no decision
which can be the subject of judicial review or agaisnt which
relief can be sought. Mr. Turmel did not pursue his complaint
before the respondent and request the respondent to rule on it.
Instead he applied to this Court for mandamus.

[11] This Court cannot, in the context of the present
proceedings, exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon the
respondnent and proceed to assess the merit of Mr. Turmel's
complaint. There is no evidence on the record that the respondent
refused to deal with the complaint. On the contrary.

[12] Moreover, had Mr. Turmel pursued his complaint and obtained
a decision from the respondent, he would have had a right of
appeal on leave from that decision pursuant to s.31(2) of the
Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c.11. The existence of a right of
appeal, whether or not limited by a requirement to obtain leave,
is a bar against judicial review: see s18.5 and ss28(2) of the
Federal Courts Act and Pachul v. CRTC, 289 N.R. 117 (F.C.A.) He
would have been barred from bringing this judicial review
proceeding.

Gilles Letourneau J.A.
I agree. Marc Noel J.A.
I agree. Pierre Blais J.A.
Dec 17 2008

JCT: So I called up the CRTC and said I wanted them to proceed
with my complaint against Rogers denying me my equitable share of
time for wearing my party button, what they call "breaking the
rules" of Fuhrer Philp.

On April 8 2009, I received notice that the CRTC had posted their
decision on my complaint to their web site:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2009/2009-184.htm

Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2009-184
Ottawa, 8 April 2009

CRTC: Complaint regarding an election debate program broadcast by
Rogers Cable Communications Inc. during the 2007 Ontario
provincial election

In this decision, the Commission finds that Rogers Cable
Communications Inc. did not breach section 27(4) of the
Broadcasting Distribution Regulations when it expelled a
political candidate from an election debate program during the
2007 Ontario provincial election campaign. The Commission
therefore dismisses the complaint by Mr. John Turmel.

JCT: Notice they just couldn't tell the whole truth which was
Rogers "expelled a political candidate for wearing a party
button." When they leave my biggest point out of the discussion,
you know the decision isn't going to go well.

CRTC: Introduction

1. On 24 September 2007, the Commission received a complaint from
Mr. John Turmel regarding an election debate program broadcast by
Rogers Cable Communications Inc. (Rogers) on its community
channel, Rogers TV. In his complaint, Mr. Turmel submitted that
Rogers breached regulations regarding the equitable allocation of
time for programs of a partisan political character by expelling
him from the program.

JCT: They forgot to mention that it was for refusing stand
politically naked without my party affiliation again. Must be a
pretty strong point to be omitted twice in the first 3
paragraphs.

CRTC: 2. On 18 September 2007, Rogers taped a program involving a
debate between six candidates in the riding of Brant, one of whom
was Mr. Turmel. The program was to be broadcast a number of times
in September and October 2007. The Ontario provincial election
took place on 10 October 2007.

3. Rogers replied to Mr. Turmel's complaint on 27 September 2007.
Mr. Turmel was not satisfied with Rogers' reply and on 1 October
2007, he requested that the Commission take action in relation to
his complaint by directing Rogers to grant him an equitable share
of airtime before election day.

4. On 4 October 2007, Mr. Turmel brought an application for
judicial review in the Federal Court of Appeal in an effort to
have the situation remedied before the further rebroadcast of the
election debate program. A judge of the Federal Court of Appeal
denied interim relief in November 2007. The Federal Court of
Appeal dismissed Mr. Turmel's application on 17 December 2008 on
the grounds that the Commission had not rendered a decision with
respect to Mr. Turmel's complaint which could be the subject of
judicial review or against which relief could be sought.1

5. Subsequently, on 26 January 2009, Mr. Turmel requested that
the Commission render a decision on his complaint.

The complaint

6. Mr. Turmel submitted that he had been denied an equal share of
time in Rogers' election debate program as required by the
regulations regarding the equitable allocation of time for
programs of a partisan political character.

JCT: For refusing to go on the show naked.

CRTC: Mr. Turmel stated that, in contrast to the other candidates
who were invited to participate in the debate and who received an
equal share of a two-hour debate, he was given only seconds
before being denied any further time.

JCT: Third time they can't bring themselves to admit that was
because I didn't want to go on naked of my party affiliation like
the others accepted to do.

CRTC: Mr. Turmel requested that the Commission direct Rogers to
grant him an equitable share of time in the debate program before
election day. Specifically, Mr. Turmel requested that Rogers
correct the situation by allowing him to tape a 32-minute segment
to be added before or after the remaining broadcasts of the
election debate program.

Rogers' reply

7. In its reply, Rogers denied that Mr. Turmel was not granted
equitable time in the election debate program. Rogers stated that
Mr. Turmel was provided with the debate rules and format in
advance, and at no time prior to the debate had Mr. Turmel raised
concerns with regard to them.

JCT: Actually, Philp had started using Brantford police years
earlier to take away my engineer's cap and party button and make
me stand completely naked with the others. Obey Fuhrer Philp's
Dress Code or we get no time. So there was a history. Thougn none
of the other candidates agreed with Philp's Dress Code, when we
told him so, Fuhrer Philp ignored us and stood firm in his
demand. So the others all went on the show stripped of their
chosen apparel and chosen political appearance.

CRTC: According to Rogers, Mr. Turmel used his opening statement
to take issue with the moderator and the debate format; he
refused to remove a badge he was wearing despite the fact that
the debate rules prohibited candidates from displaying
promotional material on the production set; and he interrupted
the opening remarks of a fellow candidate.

JCT: And of course, though I mentioned that I had worn by LETS
badge and trademark cap in earlier Brant elections, they don't
notice it was Fuhrer Philp changing the rules from the earlier
rules that I was objecting about. It's different when you know
Philp changed the rules to strip me of my advantages, not that I
merely flouted the standard rules. You can tell a lot about their
weak points by the things they try to hide.
And though the court mentioned I had finally obeyed Fuhrer
Philp's command, he then proceeded to throw me out anyway. So
when I complied with the rules, he threw me out anyway. I guess
it doesn't matter when Big Brother says so.

CRTC: In Rogers' view, Mr. Turmel was provided with an equitable
opportunity to participate in the debate program and Rogers acted
in a professional manner to ensure the coverage of the debate was
balanced and not disruptive to its viewers.

JCT: How does Philp changing the dress code ensure the coverage
was balanced and not disruptive to its viewers? Making sure
everyone goes on stripped naked keeps things balanced?

CRTC: Commission's analysis and determinations

8. Given that the election has already taken place, the
Commission considers moot Mr. Turmel's request for relief,
namely, that the Commission compel Rogers to provide him with an
equitable share of time as part of the broadcasts of the election
debate program.

JCT: Now I sought a declaration that my share was inequitable
because their "Turmel disobeyed by not going on naked" reason for
denying me my share of time is not valid. Equitable time should
not be a funcntion of a candidate's appearance or presentation.

CRTC: 9. However, at the heart of Mr. Turmel's complaint is his
allegation that, by expelling him from the debate program, Rogers
breached the Commission's regulations regarding the equitable
allocation of time for programs of a partisan political character
during an election period.

JCT: Unless refusing to obey Fuhrer Philp's dress code is reason
enough to not get a fair share of time. If the CRTC decides that
Fuhrer Philp has the power to make us go on naked if we want our
share of time, they'll have to say so.

CRTC: 10. The regulatory provision regarding the equitable
allocation of time for programs of a partisan political character
that applies to Rogers is set out in section 27(4) of the
Broadcasting Distribution Regulations:
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: "if they obey Philp's dress code" isn't there.

CRTC: 11. Similarly worded provisions exist in the Radio
Regulations, 1986, the Television Broadcasting Regulations, 1987,

JCT: And it says nothing about dress code restrictions on getting
an equitable share of time from other media too. A dress code on
radio?

12. In Public Notice 1995-44, the Commission clarified that the
above provisions in the regulations do not apply to debate
programs.

JCT: New regs say debates don't have to be equitable. We can
imagine the tortured reasoning that came up with that bent
decision.

CRTC: In the same notice, the Commission further stated that it
would not require that debate programs feature all rival parties
or candidates in one or more programs.

JCT: Think about that. You can still run a fair game without
letting all the contestants play. Lawyer thinking. Big Brother
selects who gets to take shots at the hoop and who doesn't and
it's all fair in lawyer-thinking.

CRTC: This notice followed the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision
in R. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation et al., [1993] 51
C.P.R.(3d), which held that debate programs were not programs of
a "partisan political character" within the meaning of the
Commission's regulations.

JCT: Partisan political debate is not of partisan political
character. I told you it was going to be convoluted reasoning and
here it comes:

CRTC: In the Court's view, while the participants in a debate may
very well be partisan, the program itself was not because it
presented the views of multiple candidates.

JCT: Quite true when all the views of the multiple candidates in
the game are shown.

CRTC: As such, the Court found that debate programs were not
covered by the relevant provisions of the Commission's
regulations.

JCT: Sure you may not call a debate "partisan" when everyone is
in on a share of the influence on the vopters, but that doesn't
apply to debates where everyone doesn't get to play.

So because debates with everyone are not unfairly partisan,
debates in general aren't partisan, and finally, debates with
some people not there are also not partisan. Lawyer thinking. And
debates with only 1 person are not partisan for the same rea;son
that debates in general are not partisan because debates with
everyone there aren't partisan. I told you it was going to a
sicko travel through the labyrinths of the lawying mind.

CRTC: Leave to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of
Canada was denied.

JCT: And there are judges lawying at the top too.

CRTC: 13. The Commission reiterated these determinations in
Broadcasting Circular 2007-5 in connection with the 10 October
2007 Ontario provincial election.

JCT: Court logic: Because debates with everyone present are not
partisan, debates without everyone present aren't partisan too.

CRTC: 14. In light of the Commission's determinations in Public
Notice 1995-44, the Commission considers that it is within
Rogers' editorial discretion to set the rules and format for
debates it chooses to air, and to exclude participants where, in
its view, those rules are not being complied with.

JCT: So it is within Big Brother's editorial discretion to set
any rules or dress code they want and candidates who do not obey
these dictatorial and arbitrary changes do not benefit of the
protections in the Broadcasting Act for equitable treatment.
"hey, you wore the blue shirt when they told you not to so it's
fair that your views be excluded."

No matter what the rule, even Rogers having the editorial
discretion to set the rules and format that makes all the
candidates go on naked for debates it chooses to air, and to
exclude participants where, it its view, those rules of going on
naked are not being complied with. So the CRTC says Big Brother
Fuhrer Philp can order us to do anything he wants and we have to
obey.

CRTC: 15. Accordingly, the Commission finds that Rogers Cable
Communications Inc. did not breach section 27(4) of the
Broadcasting Distribution Regulations when it expelled Mr. Turmel
from an election debate program during the 2007 Ontario
provincial election campaign.

JCT: Because of his appearance, omitted for the fourth time. They
just presume Big Brother is all-powerful so there's no need to
even ask why they changed the rules. Fuhrer Philp changed the
rules and candidates must obey.

CRTC: The Commission therefore dismisses the complaint by Mr.
John Turmel.

JCT: So the CRTC accepts officially that candidates must obey
whatever rules Big Brother chooses to impose, it gives Fuhrer
Philp the power to strip candidates of any apparel he doesn't
want them to wear, any props he doesn't want them to display, for
any reason he wants.

Rogers tried to impose the Fuhrer Philp dress code on candidates
in the Guelph election too. Making elections colorless and boring
the Fuhrer Philp way is spreading. And candidates knuckling under
on being told what they can't wear is growing. Just getting ready
to obey if they ever get elected.

Imagine, under the Fuhrer Philp rules, candidates can't use a
graph, a headline, a picture, a button, a hat. The trademark he
left me was my Royal Flush tie and that may be the next rule he
changes for the next election, no cards on ties.

Secretary General
Related documents
Guidelines to all licensees of broadcasting undertakings serving
the province of Ontario concerning the Ontario provincial
election that will take place on 10 October 2007, Broadcasting
Circular CRTC 2007-5, 7 September 2007
Election-period broadcasting: Debates, Public Notice CRTC 1995-
44, 15 March 1995
This decision is available in alternative format upon request and
may also be examined in PDF format or in HTML at the following
Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca.
Footnote
1 John C. Turmel vs. CRTC, 2008 FCA 405

JCT: So another piece of shameful Canadian Jurisprudence. Big
Brother sets the rules that can strip candidates of their party
affiliation, helpful props for their presentations and there's
nothing we can do to get a fair share of Canadian air-space they
are licensed to use without obeying Big Brother's rules. If I can
be denied my fair share of airtime for a mere showing of my party
button, the protections of democracy in the Broadcast Act and
CRTC are a joke.

You have to admit, it makes you want to puke when you realize
that it means the CRTC is letting Fuhrer Philp get away with
ejecting me from my fair share of time in the game for a dress
code violation he arbitrarily changed. Can't have democracy
without a proper dress code?

Now I have to appeal the CRTC decision to the Federal Court. I
wonder if the court will agree that dress code violations should
result in the suspension of the equitableness requirements in the
Broadcast Act.

JCT: From the South Bend Tribune, discussion on the new Michiana
Money community currency project:

http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090504/News01/90504\
0251/-1/XML

>May 05, 2009
>SouthBendTribune.com
>Name of new local currency to be announced Friday
>Tribune Staff Report

SOUTH BEND - Organizers with the Michiana Community Currency
project plan to announce the name of the new local currency at a
press conference at 2 p.m. Friday at Fiddler's Hearth downtown.
Area residents are encouraged to vote on several possible names
via the Internet or by phone through Wednesday. Open voting began
April 27.
Choices include:
BGs (Bridges and Growers),
Bits,
Bridges,
Growers,
MACs (Michiana Area Currency),
Money,
RV (Real Value, also a nod to the local production of
recreational vehicles),
Sprouts SEEDS (Social Empowerment & Equity Dollars),
SHARES (Social Harvest Resource Exchange),
Talents,
WITTs (We're In This Together).
Online voting can be done by visiting the Web site at
www.michianacurrency.org.
Votes also may be cast by sending an e-mail to:
michianacurrency@... or by calling (574) 807-1349.

"We are very gratified by the response we've received thus far,"
said Karl Hardy, an organizer with Michiana Community Currency.
"We want everyone to have the opportunity to make their opinions
known about what the new currency should be named."
Local currencies are designed to foster local trade, build
community or "social capital," and enhance economic opportunities
for the community's marginalized persons, according to the news
release.
Michiana Community Currency will only be able to be spent locally
and will complement the federal dollar, organizers say.
They'll will be signing up businesses and individuals to
participate in the local currency exchange network over the
coming weeks and months with a planned launch of the currency in
the fall.
---

JCT: There's always someone who doesn't want to be set free:

>The Justice
>Date: Posted: May 04 2009 11:17 am
>Subject: Re: Name of new local currency

TJ: We don't need any more Fiat Currency in this world. Why not
back it by something tangable like Gold so that it has some true
value, and to protect it from inflation and devaluation should
you decide to turn on the printing press?

JCT: Most people have just soooooo much gold.

TJ: Are you pegging this to the dollar? What will you do when the
inflation takes its toll on the USD? Will you be forced to
devalue and inflate your "local currency"?

JCT: If they peg it to the Hour, 60 minutes owed is always 60
minutes.

TJ: Why not just promote buying local? Simply encourage people to
go to the farmers market, to stay away from Walmart, avoid
franchises and buy from small business owners in the community?
This could be done through coupons alone.

JCT: Yeah, encouraging people to skip the cheap box stores and
shop locally has worked so well so far.

TJ: I'm very skeptical. Are you from South Bend?

JCT: Luckily, community currencies are only of use to those who
use them and don't have to be used by the skeptical until they're
broke enough to appreciate any currency to do business with
rather than no currency like in the last Great Depression.
---

> a smith
> Posted: May 04 2009 12:51 pm

AS: I will have to agree, this is silly. Why waste time, energy
and real money to print fake money.

JCT: Why waste time using fake chips when you play poker when you
can use nothing and have to settle up after every pot?

AS: I don't want fake money as change from a business in the area
for my real US currency I can use anywhere.

JCT: Now that's he's labelled something bad, it's obvious he'd
rather stay broke and do nothing than use community poker chips.

AS: I want a list of businesses using this so I can avoid them.

JCT: Maybe the stores should make a lost of the guys who dissed
the financial salvation service and not let them join as too
stupid to be trusted with "fake money." Har har har.
---

>DORIS VANARSDALE
>Posted: May 04 2009 1:58 pm

DV: I dont understand?? Why change the name and what kind of
currency.?

JCT: Imagine you babysit for a neighbor and she pays you with 4-
Hour IOU. When you need dentistry, you look in the local currency
directory and find a doctor who is charging 4 Hours per hour and
takes your 4-Hour IOU. You've bartered for your dentistry with
your time. Think of a local currency as keeping track of your
barter score in units of time linked to currency.
In the US, an Hour is worth $10, in Canada $12 Greendollars, in
UK 6 Greenpounds, in France 60 Greenfranks, in Germany 20
Greenmarks. In 1999, I paid for 39/40 nights in Europe with an
IOU for a night back in Canada worth 5 Hours.
---

>cartoonmechanic
>Date: Posted: May 04 2009 2:04 pm

CM: Just another chance for a low life to print fake money and
scam local businesses and towns people.

JCT: And just another guy who doesn't get into the game because
the trust the guy chosen to bank the game's chips which everyone
can watch.

CM: And guess who's going to foot the bill on that? The local
taxpayers.

JCT: I didn't hear about being able to pay your taxes with local
currency but that's the Holy Grail when everyone in town will
take it. The mayor could borrow what he needs from the Timebank,
spend it into circulation for municipal projects, tax it back at
the end of the year with the tax matching the people service we
got and no debt service to the bank.
---

>Justin Bowen
>Date: May 04 2009 3:01 pm

JB: Why waste time, energy and real money to print fake money.

JCT: You'd be right if we knew what fake money is other than a
non-sensical definition of a useful mechanism. For the record,
merely replacing all federal cash in circulation results in what
I call the Sparta effect. When visiting, your gold was deposited
in the Sparta city bank for clay tokens used while in town and
cashed out upon leaving. Sparta got the interest while trading
went on with the clay chips. If all bought stamps for cash, the
state would get the interest while trading would go on with the
stamp tokens.

JCT: This is the main benefit of a cash-buy-in currency like
Berkshares. But not including people with no cash to buy in with
is its main defect. People should be able to buy in with cash or
with time and that problem is solved.

JB: I don't want fake money as change from a business in the area
for my real US currency I can use anywhere.

JCT: And no doubt, as less and less stores in your area have any
real US currency to pay you with that you can use anywhere,
you'll have more and more stores surviving by offering you the
only change they have which you won't take.

JB: New Michiana currency: printed money whose value is likely to
disappear with the passage of time. US dollar: printed money
whose value is likely to disappear with the passage of time.
What's the difference?

JCT: Not if it's linked to the Time Standard of Money like all
community currencies. What? Will an Hour owed by your neighbor
suddenly only get you 50 minutes? Time-based currency can't
change value.

JB: The Justice is correct. We don't need more fiat currency.

JCT: This isn't fiat currency, it's commodity-backed currency
where the commodity is human time, not only gold and houses.

JB: The Liberty Dollar was a huge step in the right direction
until the federal government came in and trampled all over the
rights of private citizens.

JCT: The Liberty Dollar was a flawed concept whose only
beneficiaries are the gold bullion brokers. How much gold do you
have to pledge to get money? Your neighbors? How much free time
do you have to pledge to get money? Your neighbors? And no one's
trampling on their rights when all they had to do was not make
their chips look like the government's chips. They chose to incur
the government wrath, probably to give the community currency
movement a bad name.

JB: The Michiana Community Currency organization would have been
better off had it used some sort of commodity as the basis for
its currency.

JCT: They can't help but link their money to the minimum wage.

JB: It doesn't necessarily need to be gold or silver, but it
should be a commodity whose value is somewhat stable over time.

JCT: And the very best numeraire for money is human time.
---

>Brian Lewis
>Posted: May 04 2009 3:04 pm

BL: Call it the F.S. As in Flipping Stupid. There is only one
reason for this currency. It is a way to get your real dollars
out of your wallets and into the local currency printers hands.

JCT: Again, the criticism is only incurred by the cash buy-in
that let's someone like this suspect scam. Any demand for cash
would be called a scam. And making your currency "buy-only"
invites this kind of baseless, though inevitable, skepticism.
What if you could join one of the LETS systems catering to the
masses who don't have any cash or gold? WHat if you can buy-in
with an IOU for 100 hours of labor? And everyone else? We all
chip in a buck or two to print up some time-based IOU notes, or
we all print and sign our own at our home computers, so there's
no cash scam possible. Any problems? So just because the
Berkshare and Liberty Dollar systems have weaknesses, it doesn't
mean the well-designed time-trading networks do.
---

>Justin Bowen
>Posted: May 04 2009 3:05 pm

JB: There is only one reason for this currency. It is a way to
get your real dollars out of your wallets and into the local
currency printers hands.

JCT: And when all the real dollars are out of our wallets at the
local poker game and into the local currency printers' (bank)
hands, what are you afraid the banker can do?

JB: Kind of like the US dollar, eh?

JCT: Kind of the like the US dollar, not. All positives balance
all negatives and everyone can inspect the books at anytime.
---

>The Justice
>Date: Posted: May 04 2009 3:54 pm

TJ: I have to agree with justin. It doesn't necessarily need to
be gold, but something tangible with value. Heck, it could be
gold, silver, wheat, corn, oil, land, fire wood, water, etc.....
anything that has a real use and a finite amount.

JCT: Any of them can be numeraire with which we valuate the
others but time is the best because time is the easiest-
understood all around the world. Which is why time is now being
traded all around the world.

TJ: The liberty dollar was the best thing this country has
attempted in a very long time, and was one step that would have
actually resulted in more freedom and liberty for citizens from
the world bankers (your gov).

JCT: And if an inferior model based on a substance in short
supply designed to incur government wrath would be of such
benefit, imagine a superior model based on a substance of value
in abundance and designed to comply with government regulations
would be of even greater benefit. Michani Moolah linked to time
will be accepted all around the world as readily as my personal
time-IOU was.
---

>richard ferguson
>Date: Posted: May 04 2009 5:32 pm

RJ: Can we spell forged, sounds like a scam in the works..... Bad
idea, by the way what is downtown to spend it on. Bars, or the
hall of shame its a ghost town.

JCT: This kind of senseless criticism can only arise with cash-
buy-in chips.
---

>Karl Hardy
>Date: Posted: May 04 2009 5:33 pm

KH: For the record, this is a non-profit grassroots project by
and for Michiana-area residents. No one is or will be making
money from our local currency.

JCT: Do you think these guys can help but think it's now a
conspiracy?

KH: The merits (or lack of) deserve thoughtful research before
forming an opinion:
Local currency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_currency
Ithaca Hours (model we are basing our effort on from Ithaca, NY)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ithaca_Hours
You can also get more information on our local effort at:
http://www.michianacurrency.org

JCT: The last thing the uninformed want to do is get informed.
---

>mike trzcinski
>Date: Posted: May 04 2009 5:40 pm

MT: WHO? Pays for the cost of having this local currency.

JCT: Use a pure computer credit system and no one does.  But if
you want the convenience of paper chips, sure there'll be a print
job unless you install a standard note anyone can download, print
out in the right time-denominations, sign, register and use. So
you don't need the suspicious print job whose costs worry you so.
Say only those who want to use paper buy the notes once printed,
feel any better?

MT: I thought this idea had come and gone and the "community"
decided it wasn't such a grand idea???

JCT: I'm sure many in the community who think this do-it-yourself
self-help currency system had come and gone and are quite content
to do nothing counting on local governments to save the day.

MT: Please inform or correct my ignorance?

JCT: Done.
---

>Gypsy Jeff
>Date: Posted: May 05 2009 1:54 am

GJ: Currency is issued by governments; the full faith and credit
of those governments guarantee the value of the currency..

JCT: And local currency is issued by your neighbors; the full
faith and credit of those neighbors guarantees the value of the
Hour IOU currency.  So who would you want to trust? Big
Government or Local Neighbor?

GJ: "Social Dollars"? Sounds like the old socialist barter
system.

JCT: Let the socialists save themselves with the old socialist
barter system that saved Russia and Argentina just recently. No
social dollars needed to save America when it's already being
saved satisfactorily.

GJ: It would not be "legal tender", nor could it be legal tender.

JCT: It would be receipt for a constant value in time.

GJ: What does the Farmer's Market versus WalMart have to do with
anything. We are no longer an agrarian society.

JCT: When the local shoemaker takes your money then comes back to
spend his profit in your store, versus when Walmart takes your
money and then sends the profit out of town, it has nothing to do
with agrarian shoes.
---

>Brian Lewis
>Date: Posted: May 05 2009 4:56 am

BL: Ok Karl, How does one obtain a denomination of local
currency? Will employers pay their workers in local currency?
Will banks cash local currency checks?
No, I'm going to have to trade my real money to get your fake
money. You will deposit my fake money in the bank and spend it.
Meanwhile, my newly obtained fake money will rot in a drawer and
never get used.
You seem determined that this is a grand idea and we are stupid
for rejecting it because we haven't researched it enough to fall
in love with it.
Sounds alot like the current white house administration.

JCT: After all I've explained, I agree with your conclusion that
"this is a grand idea and we are stupid for rejecting it because
we haven't researched it enough to fall in love with it."

BL: Take your flipping stupid currency and shove it.

JCT: Is there someway to stop Brian from joining when he finally
wises up to punish him? Can't. Just like no one can stop Ichaca
neighbors from accepting Ithaca Hours rather than do no deal, no
on can stop Brian from using the financial life-boat when he gets
desperate enough. He's not there yet. He's not looking for a way
out, he's looking for flaws in the only way out being offered.
Like guys who never got out of jail because they never checked to
find out the cell was unlocked.

JCT: This morning, I priorioty posted the following
"Supplementary Written Representations on Sfetkopoulos" to Justice
Tulloch no considering Terry Parker's claim for the return of his
marijuana seized by Canada Post and other relief:

File No. #SCA(F) 2484/08
                   SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
                     (Criminal Division)
Between:
                       Terrance Parker
                                                    Appellant
                             and
                    Her Majesty the Queen
                                                   Respondent

       SUPPLEMENTARY WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS ON SFETKOPOULOS

1. JCT: Enclosed are:
- Appendix A: Supreme Court of Canada Memorandum of the Crown
Attorney Ron Marzel in the Sfetkopoulos case aided by James
Gorham for their recently-dismissed application for leave to
appeal
- Appendix B: Notice of Motion and Memorandum for Stay of
Execution pending appeal to Supreme Court of Canada
- Appendix C: Order granting the stay of execution "pending
further order of this Court." The Order granting the stay is
unsigned but Crown James Gorham would know.
- Appendix D: Koenigsberg J. ruling severing two flaws in the
MMAR.

2. JCT: In the Memorandum for Leave to appeal:

CR: 1. The Federal Court of Canada has interpreted Section 7 of
the Charter as conferring the right to obtain marijuana from the
supplier of an individual's choice, notwithstanding the existence
of an effective licit supply of marihuana provided by a
Government licensed supplier. If left standing, the decision:
(b) revives arguments that the offence of marijuana possession in
section 4(1) of the CDSA is constitutionally invalid, despite
this Court having settled the issue in R. v. Malmo-Levine.

JCT: So, now left standing, it revives our arguments that the
offence of marijuana possession in section 4(1) of the CDSA is
constitutionally invalid.
The Malmo-Levine decision only stated that Government can
prohibit a controlled substances, not that it did after the
Parker or Krieger invalidations.

4. CR: 33. The judgment in this case may create confusion
concerning the constitutional validity of the prohibition against
the possession of marihuana as set out in S.4 of the CDSA and
therefore compromise existing prosecutions under the CDSA.

JCT: And perhaps necessitating an expunging of the 300,000 bogus
convictions from the victims' criminal records over the past 6
years?

5. CR: In R. v. Poelzer, for example, a prosecution currently
underway in B.C. Supreme Court, defence counsel has argued that,
by virtue of the Ontario Court of Appeal's judgment in R. v. J.P.
the invalidation of s41(b.1) of the MMAR retrospectively
invalidates s.4(1) of the CDSA in respect of marihuana.

CR: Even lawyers are catching on to the fact the prohibition
became invalid when the exemption became invalid.

CR: The Court in R. v. J.P. ruled that the combined effect of
Parker and Hitzig meant there was no constitutionally valid
marijuana possession offence between July 31 2001 and Oct 7 2003,
the date the MMAR were constitutionally rectified by the decision
in Hitzig. Courts may construe the Federal Court of Appeal's
decision as creating a similar period of retrospective invalidity
dating back to December 3 2003, the date that s.41(b.1) was re-
introduced into the MMAR."

JCT: It's what we've been asking the courts to construe too.

In the Applicant's Notice of Motion for a Stay of Execution:

6. CR: 5. If the Order is not stayed pending the proposed appeal,
the public will suffer irreparable harm... Courts of criminal
jurisdiction may interpret the Order as retrospectively
invalidating the offence of marijuana possession in CDSA s.4(1)."

JCT: In the Applicant's Memorandum for a stay:

7. CR: 1. The Federal Court of Appeal has declared s.41(b.1) of
the MMAR constitutionally invalid.

JCT: And now the Supreme Court of Canada let that ruling stand.

8. CR: 17. This Court has recognized that there is a public
"interest in avoiding harm to users and others caused by
marihuana consumption." The effect of the judgment of this Court
is to jeopardize this public interest in two ways:

(2) Courts are being urged and may interpret the FCA's judgment
as retrospectively invalidating the offence of marijuana
possession, trafficking and/or production in sections 4,5, and 7
of the CDSA.

JCT: How can cultivating something legal be illegal? and how can
trafficking in something legal be illegal? and how can possessing
something legal have an illegal purpose?

9. CR: (2) The public interest in maintaining the offence
provisions of the CDSA
21. Members of the criminal defence bar have argued that s.4 of
the CDSA is retrospectively invalid as a result of the judgments
of the courts below.

JCT: And non-members of the criminal bar way before.

10. CR: For example, defence counsel in the R. v. Poelzer appeal
before the B.C. Supreme Court argued that the FCA's judgment
means that Parliament failed to implement a constitutionally
acceptable scheme for ensuring a licit supply of marijuana for
medical reasons, as required in the Ontario Court of Appeal in
Hitzig, and that the prohibition of possession of marijuana is
therefore of no force and effect. While this argument was
rejected by the Court in that case, this has not prevented it
from being raised in other prosecutions.

22. In a judgment issued on Feb 2 2009, without written reasons,
Justice Koenigsberg of the B.C. Supreme Court declared that
s41(b.1) of the MMAR to be unconstitutional on the same grounds
as the FCA in this case, but suspended the declaration of
invalidity for one year. She went further and, on the same
grounds, struck down S.54.1 of the MMAR, which restricts the
number of licensed growers who can grow in common.

R. v. Beren, Feb 2 2009, (B.C.S.C. #131900)
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/09/04/2009BCSC0429.htm

JCT: The highlight of the decision in Beren is:

11. [127] Adopting the reasoning in Hitzig and Sfetkopoulos,
further bolstered by the evidence before this court, I find
ss.41(b.1) and 54.1 of the MMAR contrary to s. 7 of the Charter.
REMEDIES
[129] As the matter now stands, the federal Court of Appeal in
Sfetkopoulos declared s. 41(b.1) invalid and refused to suspend
that declaration. The case is under appeal to the Supreme Court
of Canada.

JCT: Not any more. So:

12. [133] ..Consistent with the reasoning in Schachter v. Canada,
[1992] 2 S.C.R. 679, 93 D.L.R. (4th) 1, these provisions, unduly
restricting DPLs from growing for more than one ATP or growing in
concert with two other DPLs, are hereby severed from the MMAR.
[135] The government, in my view, will need time to put in place
appropriate monitoring and enforcement mechanisms in relation to
such compassion clubs.  Thus, it is appropriate to stay the
effect of this declaration of invalidity for one year.
"Koenigsberg J."

JCT: Not just one but two flaws in the MMAR making the CDSA
prohibition invalid according to the on-off reasoning in J.P.

LONG ODDS IN FINDING A DOCTOR IS THIRD FLAW IN MMAR

13. Also, added to the second flaw to the discredit of the MMAR
found by Justice Koenigsberg, this Court has the opportunity to
put a third nail in the MMAR coffin, that is of the long odds in
finding a doctor when a way should have been legislated ensuring
all doctors participate. If Terry Parker's doctor can prescribe
heroin without fear, why can't he prescribe herb without fear?

KRIEGER INVALIDATION GROUND STRENGTHENED

14. Please notice the wording of the Order staying execution
"pending further order of this court." This is the exact wording
used by Alberta Justice O'Leary in staying the effect of the
Krieger invalidation of S7 cultivation prohibition pending
appeal. Crown Attorney David Frankel then raised the novel
argument that the Krieger invalidation never took effect because
the stay pending further order survived the Final Order upon
dismissal of their appeal and still needed to be lifted. Of
course, once an appeal is dismissed and the court becomes functus
officio, no further motions may be made. So Frankel's Foible
results in the Krieger invalidation being stayed forever. When
they win, we lose. When we win, they don't lose.

15. Now here at the Supreme Court, the execution of the
Sfetkopoulos invalidation of the MMAR was stayed "pending further
order of the court" which I maintain is but a standard phrase,
not a prime Order. Now that the Supreme Court has dismissed their
appeal, can the Crown now argue the Frankel Foible that the stay
pending further order still needs to be lifted (even though
motions can't be filed after the court is functus officio) and
ergo, the Sfetkopoulos invalidation is stayed forever a la
Krieger?

16. Of course, I doubt they will dare raise the Frankel Foible to
argue the Sfetkopoulos decision remains stayed forever because a
stay pending further order of the court survives the Final Order
of the Court and still needs to be somehow lifted. The Frankel
Foible has been exposed by this analogous situation at the
Supreme Court as baseless and bolsters Appellant's ground that
the prohibitions on cultivation and possession were invalidated
by Krieger in early 2003 making for a seamless interval of
invalidity between Terry Parker Day and now.

CROWN WON'T AMEND CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA

17. The Ministry of Justice DID NOT amend the Criminal Code to
reflect the Parker invalidation in 2001, nor the Krieger
invalidation in 2003, nor to reflect the Sfetkopoulos decision.
And I've heard exemptees have a letter from the Minister saying
it will not be amended to comply. Yet, Canada's lawyers and
judges say: It's still in the Code so it must still be valid."

REMEDIES SOUGHT:

18. In the Crown's own words, Appellant Terry Parker asks this
Court for an Order declaring "the Federal Court of Appeal's
decision as creating a similar period of retrospective invalidity
- dating back to December 3 2003, the date that s.41(b.1) was re-
introduced into the MMAR," or, in the alternative,
- dating back to Aug 1 2001, the date the Parker invalidation of
s.4 possession offence took effect, or,
- dating back to July 1 1983 when the Charter enshrined the
rights violated by the prohibition.

CEASE AND DESIST UNTIL PARLIAMENT RE-ENACTS

19. Appellant ask this court to Order the Crown to cease and
desist all marijuana prosecutions, not until Health Canada fixes
the MMAR to turn the penal statute back on, but until Parliament
re-enacts a new constitutionally valid prohibition with a new
constitutionally valid exemption.

ENDING COPS AND GARDENERS OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE

20. After saddling over 100,000 Canadians with bogus convictions
during the Parker interval the Crown has not managed to saddle
another 300,000 Canadians with bogus criminal records during the
"Sfetkopoulos" interval of invalidity. The stupendous
incompetence or criminality must end. You have the power and a
chance to exercise the full measure of your power on what the
Crown keeps arguing is an issue of national importance.

21. This Court can end this insane war of cops and gardeners and
focus police resources on real crime while saving all those with
medical need who are too afraid of the system to apply.

EXPUNGE CRIMINAL RECORDS

22. Appellant further asks this Honourable Court to Order the
Crown to expunge from their criminal records all the bogus
convictions registered
- since December 3 2003, the date that s.41(b.1) was re-
introduced into the MMAR." or in the alternative,
- since Aug 1 2001 Terry Parker Day when the statute was struck
down and never re-enacted by Parliament, or,
- since July 1 1983 when the Charter enshrined the right that the
prohibition has violated.

GENOCIDE OF THE SICK

23. Finally, in the name of the 4 known epileptics a day who die
and who would not have had they had a joint in their possession
when they felt the aura of their seizure coming on over the past
many years, end this insane genocide against the sick who need
this medication for healing and the against the healthy who could
use it for prevention of all things it's good for once we've got
them but before we've got them.

Dated at Brantford on Saturday May 2 2009




_________________________
Agent for the Appellant
John C. Turmel, B.Eng.,
8-37 Colborne St. E.,
Brantford, N3T 2G3,
Tel/Fax: 519-753-0645,
Email: johnturmel@...

For the Respondent:
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
Per: James Gorham James.gorham@...

JCT: That's all, folks. Best shot at abolition of prohibition
we've ever had.

JCT: So let's see how the Sfetkopoulos case is being spun to the
rest of Canadians.

From the Crown's Memoranda to the Supreme Court of Canada, we
know they feared that the Sfetkopoulos strike down of the MMAR
meant:
1) greater possibility of diversion by bigger grow-ops,
2) 6 no-law years by Sfetkopoulos like 2 no-law years by Parker!

Over and over, their fear of fewer larger grow-ops being harder
to police, har har har har nyuk nyuk nyuk nyuk; and their real
fear of no law back to Dec 2003 like the no-law from Oct 2003
back to Terry Parker Day Aug 2001.

So the true fear is losing all their on-going prosecutions like
they lost the 4000 against me last time. So the real story here
isn't grow-op concerns affecting dozens, it's constitutional
concerns affecting millions.

So let's see what Canadians are being told the Sfetkopoulos
victory means:

>National Post
>Saturday, May 02, 2009
>Legal haze: Health Canada has 'obstructionist approach' over
medical

JCT: Canadians better get ready for the CanWest haze explanation.

>by Shannon Kari,

JCT: Shannon Kari was the presstitute who distorted the Parker,
Hitzig et al consolidated appeals into a Hitzig appeal story so
when the Court of Appeal changed the style of cause to Hitzig,
Parker et al, it was seamless that the public didn't hear about
the Parker, Hitzig case while it was called the Parker, Hitzig
case until it was no longer called the Parker, Hitzig case.
Shannon and the Court of Appeal completely shut original
Appellant Parker out of the story to write case law under the
name Hitzig, Parker.
Just search for Turmel and "Shannon Kari" at my blog in the year
2003 to see his part in distorting the real import of the Parker,
Hitzig et al appeals that resulted in 4000 charges being dropped.

Picture Caption: About 400,000 Canadians use marijuana to deal
with chronic pain, yet fewer than 3,000 have received official
approval from Health Canada.

JCT: According to Justice Lederman in the Hitzig case, it's proof
it works. That's 1 in 133. For an engineer to have 1 in 133
bridges fail would be a disaster. For 1 in 133 to get covered is
what a lawyer-judge like Lederman calls a success. Har har har.

SK: It was nearly 25 years ago that Jamaican dance hall reggae
singer Frankie Paul crooned "Canadian people love the tusheng
peng" as he exhorted them to "pass it ovah" in his breezy ode to
the joys of marijuana. The musical sentiment was expressed long
after the LeDain Commission recommended in 1972 that marijuana
should be legalized and regulated like alcohol. Whether
accompanied by a reggae backbeat or the more formal findings of a
Royal Commission, the conclusions were the same -- there should
be fewer restrictions on marijuana access.

JCT: Actually, they promised my generation decriminalisation and
Trudeau and Chretien let us down. They didn't promise less hoops
to jump through.

SK: Decades later, the Canadian people are arguably farther away
than ever from legally passing the tusheng peng.

JCT: If you believe the Hitzig decision brought the law back
alive. And Shannon was present back in 2003 to help publish Alan
Young's case that Hitzig had brought the law back alive.

SK: About 40,000 people are still charged each year with simple
possession, according to Statistics Canada. Criminalizing
possession was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2003 on
the grounds that the state must be permitted to use the threat of
criminal penalties to stop "vulnerable people" from "self-harm."

JCT: Notice how he's using the Judas Goat Malmo-Levine case from
2003 to say the Supreme Court of Canada said the prohibition was
currently known to law when the court really said government
could prohibit a controlled substance. We agree but say they
never did since they were invalidated by Parker and Krieger. Of
course, that argument is being heard in the courts of justice,
not this court of CanWest-distorted court of public opinion.

SK: The Conservative government of Stephen Harper is again
proposing stiff penalties for even small level growers,
reintroducing legislation that died in the last session of
Parliament but has always been part of its "tough on crime"
agenda.

JCT: And if they're re-introducing a new prohibition under
section 4, I'll have to visit Parliament Hill again while the
prohibition is valid. Probably on the last day, though.

SK: It is in the field of medical marijuana, though, that Canada
has seemed particularly intent on limiting access even though
other Western nations are moving in the opposite direction.

There are an estimated 400,000 Canadians who use marijuana to
deal with chronic pain and other ailments, yet fewer than 3,000
have received official approval from Health Canada, which has
formally conceded there are legitimate medical benefits from
marijuana. As well, it continues to file appeal after appeal
whenever aspects of its maze of medical marijuana regulations are
struck down by a court as being unconstitutional.

JCT: And each it was struck down by the courts, the prohibition
turned off and each time it was struck up by the courts, the
prohibition turned on, turned off, turned off. Judge-made law.

SK: Marijuana advocates suggest there is a disconnect between the
actual risks of the substance and what the public is being told
by politicians and police.

JCT: More and more of the public realize they're lying about a
herb that causes zero deaths.

SK: "Sadly, law enforcement agencies have done a fairly good job
at scaring the public," said Alan Young, a law professor at
Osgoode Hall in Toronto who has represented many people seeking
greater access to marijuana for medical reasons.

JCT: Shannon working with the Professeur Saboteur again to spin
away from what's really going on. So, how's our Court Clutz going
to try turn turn a win into a loss this time?

SK: Those court battles have consistently struck down obstacles
to obtaining a legal supply for medical users.

JCT: And each time, the prohibition turned off while the flaw had
been impairing MMAR function. On, off, on, off, work for lawyers.

SK: The Supreme Court refused last month to hear a Health Canada
appeal of a Federal Court decision that struck down a rule
restricting designated producers from growing for more than one
user.

JCT: Hooray. An MMAR flaw means the prohibition has been invalid.

SK: A judge in British Columbia also struck down another
restriction in February that no more than three designated
producers can grow together for medical users, in a case
involving the Vancouver Island Compassion Society. Health Canada
responded by filing an appeal of the B. C. decision.

JCT: Hooray, a second MMAR flaw means the prohibition has been
doubly invalid these past 6 years.

SK: Both of these restrictions had already been ruled
unconstitutional in 2003 by the Ontario Court of Appeal, because
sick people were forced to use the black market to obtain their
medicine. Instead of appealing the decision, Health Canada simply
ignored it and re-enacted its restrictions -- those that were
recently struck down again.

JCT: Gimme the ball in your end zone and I say thanks.

SK: The actions of Health Canada "border on contempt" said Mr.
Young, who acted in the 2003 Ontario Court of Appeal case and the
2008 Federal Court proceeding. "They have an obstructionist
approach," he stated.

JCT: Even if it's more than just a stupid gimme, it's a
contemptuous gimme, it's still a gimme and the only thing that
now counts is getting our score on the scoreboard.

SK: While the government has provided a legal supply of marijuana
through a private producer, only a small percentage of medical
users access the product because of complaints about its quality.

JCT: Which the Federal Court did not accept.

SK: The significance of the Federal Court decision is that it
will start to open up the market to other legal producers,
explained Mr. Young. "There is now much more leverage to
cultivate for sick people," he said.

JCT: Now that the prohibition is invalid, I would think everyone
can grow and sell at farmers' markets. Oh, Alan Young meant that
he presumes the prohibition is valid while he gets a license for
his company, not that anyone can now grow it. Which is what the
Crown's greatest fear, the 6 like 2 periods of invalidity,
results in, everyone being able to grow for anyone. No
prohibition.

SK: Health Canada said that in light of the Supreme Court's
decision to not hear an appeal of the that ruling, it will "take
swift and immediate action to revamp the [medical marijuana]
program," though it did not say what that action would be.

JCT: And I've been assured that the Minister has said that they
will not permit multiple exemptions. It would have been useful to
send to Judge Tulloch but you can't always use all your great
cards in making your hand. But that letter would have been a key
support.

SK: The government is also moving forward on tightening laws
against non-medical use.

JCT: Which probably means that since they know the prohibition's
been invalid for the past 6 years, they'll pull another Hitzig
coup, declaring the law alive on the day the admit it's been dead
for the past 2 years. Now they're going to re-enact the law alive
after admitting it's been dead the past 6 years.

SK:  The House of Common justice committee resumes hearings on
Monday over reintroduced legislation that would require a
mandatory minimum of six months in jail for anyone found to be
growing even one marijuana plant illegally.

JCT: Lunatics running the asylum. With the financial crash and
police resources soon to be stressed to the limit in dealing with
the new-depression era homeless and disadvantaged, they're
expanding their war of cops and gardeners. Sure seems like there
must be a hidden agenda. Make sure to note the prohibitionists
for someday, the 4 dead epileptics a day since they could have
helped end it can be computed for their discomfort.
For instance, in the 5.5 years, 66 months since the Parker,
Hitzig et al Court could have allowed every epileptics possession
of a joint but instead the Hitzig, Parker et al Court tricked
them into not possessing their cure by convincing them the courts
could bring laws back alive. And the judges are working on
bringing back capital punishment, new judge-resurrected law, to
deal with real problem cases.

SK: Phillipe Lucas, executive director of the Vancouver Island
Compassion Society, and a city councillor in Victoria, stated
that it is the "police lobby" keeping prohibitions in place to
preserve its budgets.

JCT: Another Alan Young-Marc Emery cahoot who accepts that the
prohibition hasn't been invalidated by the flaw in the MMAR. He's
lawying.

SK: Suspicion of marijuana possession is often used as a
"gateway" by officers to check individuals for other crimes, Mr.
Lucas noted.

JCT: Introducing irrelevancy to the story.

SK; During his recent appearance before the Commons justice
committee, the federal justice minister Rob Nicholson told
members that the government believes Canadians welcome tough new
laws against marijuana growers. As well, he asserted that
"marijuana is the currency" used to bring in harder drugs into
Canada. If this is the case, it is a function of the laws against
marijuana, Mr. Lucas said. "Drug-related crime is prohibition-
related crime," he suggested. Small-time medical growers may not
be targeted by the new laws, "but they will be caught up in it.
Police always go after low-hanging fruit," he predicted.

JCT: Been there, heard that. Old news.

SK: Along with easing restrictions on growers, Mr. Lucas urged
Health Canada to simplify its regulations for users.

JCT: Busy man while he can help the notion that prohibition is
still alive even if flaws keep being found in the MMAR.

SK: He pointed to Oregon, where more than 20,000 people have a
state Medical Marijuana card as a result of a streamlined
application process. The program is so accepted that Kitty
Piercy, the Mayor of Eugene, Ore., recently proclaimed next week
as Medical Marijuana Awareness Week.
The state of California has a similar law that allows almost
30,000 cardholders or their caregivers to grow six to 12 plants,
and some counties have recently moved even further on the road to
legalization with proposed measures that would tax the production
of medical marijuana.
It remains to be seen, though, whether Canada will follow those
trends -- despite what Frankie Paul said all those years ago.
skari@...


JCT: Old stuff. And not a word about the "6 years of Sfetkopoulos
invalidity like 2 years of Parker invalidity" problem. Har har
har har. The only place the get the truth of what's going on the
Turmel channel of information. The only place you can read in the
Crown's own words what is really at stake.

CR: 33. The judgment in this case may create confusion concerning
the constitutional validity of the prohibition against the
possession of marihuana as set out in S.4 of the CDSA and
therefore compromise existing prosecutions under the CDSA. In R.
v. Poelzer, for example, a prosecution currently underway in B.C.
Supreme Court, defence counsel has argued that, by virtue of the
Ontario Court of Appeal's judgment in R. v. J.P. the invalidation
of s41(b.1) of the MMAR retrospectively invalidates s.4(1) of the
CDSA in respect of marihuana. The Court in R. v. JP ruled that
the combined effect of Parker and Hitzig meant there was no
constitutionally valid marijuana possession offence between July
31 2001 and Oct 7 2003, the date the MMAR were constitutionally
rectified by the decision in Hitzig. Courts may construe the
Federal Court of Appeal's decision as creating a similar period
of retrospective invalidity dating back to December 3 2003, the
date that s.41(b.1) was re-introduced into the MMAR."

JCT: And it sure isn't the story pushed by Alan Young and
Philippe Lucas to their presstitute Shannon Kari from CanWest
Crooked media in Canada.

One more time:
Courts may construe the Federal Court of Appeal's decision as
creating a similar period of retrospective invalidity dating back
to December 3 2003, the date that s.41(b.1) was re-introduced
into the MMAR.

JCT: Here's all the good stuff from the the Crown's documentation
at the Supreme Court they never thought would see the light of
day:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
(On Appeal; from the Federal Court of Appeal)
Between the Applicant/Appellant
The Attorney General for Canada
Counsel for the Applicant
Sean Gaudet
Certificate of Counsel signed by James Gorham

And the Respondents
Dora Sfetkopoulos et al
Counsel for the Respondents
Ron Marzel

JCT: Mr. Gorham is the attorney who argued Sfetkopoulos in Terry
Parker's case currently under advisement by Justice Tulloch and
will have to defend against our new Supreme Court of Canada Ace.

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
Dated at Toronto this 22nd day of December 2008.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA'S MEMORANDUM

PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS

CR: OVERVIEW

1. The Federal Court of Canada has interpreted Section 7 of the
Charter as conferring the right to obtain marijuana from the
supplier of an individual's choice, notwithstanding the existence
of an effective licit supply of marihuana provided by a
Government licensed supplier. If left standing, the decision:

(a) will remove the ability of the Government to limit the size
of marijuana grow operations, making it likely that large grow
operations will be created, thus raising important security
concerns such as the risk that marihuana will be diverted to
criminal use; and

JCT: That's typical backward lawyer thinking when it would be
easier for the RCMP to police 10 large grow ops than 1000 small
ones. Sadly, Ron Marzel never refuted it.

CR: (b) revives arguments that the offence of marijuana
possession in section 4(1) of the CDSA is constitutionally
invalid, despite this Court having settled the issue in R. v.
Malmo-Levine.

JCT: Isn't the Crown lucky to have that Judas Goat Malmo-Levine
case to count on. Another Alan Young-connected "oops, sorry to
help the Crown again" loser. But we know that the Malmo-Levine
decision only stated what we agree with, that Government has the
power to prohibit controlled substances. What it did not say was
that the prohibition is valid. It only says they can make a valid
prohibition. But they have not since Parker and Krieger.

CR: 2. The decision of the Federal Court also contradicts the
judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Hitzig v. Canada, and
is inconsistent with the decisions of other lower courts. This
court should resolve the conflict in the jurisprudence.

JCT: The Crown says they're inconsistent because Ontario Court of
Appeal in Hitzig said S.41(b.1) was unconstitutional and now the
Federal Court says it too. This is a favorite Crown tactic, claim
the opposite of what it is. Both courts found the same section
unconstitutional for the same reasons so call that an
inconsistency. Har har har har.

CR: 3.-9. Background....

10. Having ensured the existence of a reasonable and licit
supply, the Government re-introduced s.41(b.1) in order to limit
the number of persons for whom a designated grower can produce
marijuana...

JCT: And the court ruled that that did not mitigate the violation
of the right found in Hitzig and found it violated the same right
for the same reason as Hitzig in Sfetkopoulos. Not inconsistent!

CR: The Judgments in the courts below

11. In April 2005, the respondents file an application for
judicial review seeking an order declaring s.41(b.1)
unconstitutional...

12. The applications judge, Strayer D.J. granted the application
and declared s.41(b.1) to be contrary to section 7 of the
Charter... Strayer D.J. concluded that s.41(b.1) of the MMAR
negatively affected the respondents section 7 liberty and
security interests... Strayer D.J. found that by re-introducing
s.41(b.1) the Government had not complied with the Court's
decision in Hitzig...

13. He rejected that the marihuana supplied by PPS was
inferior...

14. The Government filed an appeal and sought to stay Strayer
D.J.'s judgment pending appeal... Granted by Chief Justice
Richard.

15.-17. (What Crown says happened at Federal Court of Appeal.)

PART II - ISSUES

18. Why the issue is of public importance

PART III - ARGUMENT

20.-26. Arguing its public importance.

JCT: They argued it wasn't of national importance in Terry's
case. Har har har.

CR: The significant implications of the judgments below

27. By striking down S.41(b.1) of the MMAR, the Federal Court of
Appeal has removed the limitation of the size of the DPL
production facilities. It is now possible for one person to grow
marijuana for several authorized marihuana users. In striking
down this provision, the Federal Court of Appeal has effectively
prevented the Government from being able to control the size of
DPL operations.

28. The judgment may result in the proliferation of large scale
marihuana grow operations. To this point in time, one grower has
already indicated an intention of growing for 250 people. This
will entail the cultivation and harvesting of several hundred
kilograms of marihuana.

JCT: Good, finally, they'll be able to get the benefits of the
economies of scale.

CR: 29. It is important to emphasize that they were intended to
be small operations producing marijuana only for one person...

JCT: Reducing any economies of scale down to zero and making the
medicine as expensive as possible.

CR: 30. Indeed, this rationale - minimizing the risk of diversion
- was a key reason for the re-introduction of s.41(b.1).

JCT: Again, the risk of diversion is less for 10 large well-
policed grow-ops versus 1000 small ones.

CR: 32. Given the high street value and its wise use as a
recreational drug, it was reasonable for the government to
conclude that the risk that DDPL holders will use marijuana for
non-medical purposes or that marijuana will be stolen from their
premises is greater for larger scale grow operations than for
smaller operations.

JCT: Who's going to rob one of those 10 grow-ops with the RCMP
sitting on top of them? The rationale is backwards.

CR: 33. The judgment in this case may create confusion concerning
the constitutional validity of the prohibition against the
possession of marihuana as set out in S.4 of the CDSA and
therefore compromise existing prosecutions under the CDSA. In R.
v. Poelzer, for example, a prosecution currently underway in B.C.
Supreme Court, defence counsel has argued that, by virtue of the
Ontario Court of Appeal's judgment in R. v. J.P. the invalidation
of s41(b.1) of the MMAR retrospectively invalidates s.4(1) of the
CDSA in respect of marihuana.

JCT: And not only now in BC, but Terry Parker has it before
Justice Tulloch, Real Martin has it in the Court of Appeal, Jim
Turner too. After 6 years of us arguing it, someone in BC finally
caught on to lead us to victory?

CR: The Court in R. v. JP ruled that the combined effect of
Parker and Hitzig meant there was no constitutionally valid
marijuana possession offence between July 31 2001 and Oct 7 2003,
the date the MMAR were constitutionally rectified by the decision
in Hitzig. Courts may construe the Federal Court of Appeal's
decision as creating a similar period of retrospective invalidity
dating back to December 3 2003, the date that s.41(b.1) was re-
introduced into the MMAR."

JCT: Wow.

CR: The conflict between the judgments below and other
jurisprudence

34. ..The Federal Court of Appeal has now stated that this (MMAR)
is not an adequate response to the supply problem, without
articulating any reasons explaining why this is so.

35. A number of other courts across the country have also
concluded that the regulatory amendments made by the Government
in response to the Hitzig decision ensure an adequate supply of
marijuana, and therefore pass constitutional muster.

CR: Dated Dec 22 2008.
Sean Gaudet

JCT: So those were the high-lights of the Crown's Memorandum to
the Supreme Court of Canada.

Now the Response by the Alan Young teammate Ron Marzel.

RESPONDENTS' MEMORANDUM

RM: OVERVIEW
5. The Federal Court of Appeal's decision dovetails with the
Ontario Court of Appeal in Hitzig and any inconsistency with
lower courts is solely the result of the inadequacy of evidence
concerning the operation of the MMAR program in those lower court
proceedings.

7. The Federal Court of Appeal chose to answer.. that a one-to-
one ratio is arbitrary in so far as such a limitation does
nothing to advance the Government's interest in preventing the
diversion of a controlled substance into the recreational market.

8. The Federal Court of Appeal's conclusion that s.41(b.1)
violates Section 7 of the Charter
(b) does not call into question the constitutional validity of
the marijuana possession offence contained in CDSA s.4(1).

JCT: So the prohibitionist Crown admits that J.P. says that the
MMAR flaw does invalidate the CDSA prohibition and the pro-medpot
lawyer argues not!!! Whose side is he on? Of course, being
connected to the Professeur Saboteur, there's no more need for
the Crown to argue that the prohibition does not fall when the
Respondent has accepted it has not been invalidated!! Well, we
disagree with Mr. Marzel and his mentor, Court Clutz Young.

RM: 9.-41. Nothing much of interest.

Dated at Toronto on Feb 6 2009.
Ron Marzel
---

APPLICANT'S REPLY

JCT: Even though Ron Marzel stated up front that he doesn't
believe that the flaw in the MMAR causes the CDSA prohibition to
be invalid, the Crown's last point was:

CR: 12. Finally, while many lower courts have refused to follow
the judgments of the Federal Court case, the B.C. Supreme Court
recently relied on the judgments below in invalidating s.41(b.1)
of the MMAR, although it suspended its declaration for a year.
The accused was convicted of possession for the purpose of
trafficking but was granted an absolute discharge because some of
the intended recipients of the marijuana were ATP holders.
Dated Feb 16 2009
Sean Gaudet
---

JCT: Now for some fun, the Crown's motion for a stay of
execution. Here they're going to tell some truth about what their
losing will mean, words we'll use against them in all upcoming
cases.

MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION

CR: The public will suffer irreparable harm if the Order is not
stayed

5. If the Order is not stayed pending the proposed appeal, the
public will suffer irreparable harm... Courts of criminal
jurisdiction may interpret the Order as retrospectively
invalidating the offence of marijuana possession in CDSA s.4(1).
Dated Feb 19 2009
Sean Gaudet

JCT: Dropping their last 10,000 cases and erasing their last
400,000 bogus convictions is going to cause the public to suffer
irreparable harm? Not doing anything costs 5000 new busts a
month.

CR: MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENT

1. The Federal Court of Appeal has declared s.41(b.1) of the MMAR
constitutionally invalid...

2.-16. Grow-op concerns

17. This Court has recognized that there is a public "interest in
avoiding harm to users and others caused by marihuana
consumption." The effect of the judgment of this Court is to
jeopardize this public interest in two ways:

(1) by invalidating s.41(b.1) Health Canada may be required to
issue DPLs to producers operating large scale "grow ops" that are
not subject to the prescriptive security requirements that are
imposed on licensed dealers such as PPS; and

(2) Courts are being urged and may interpret the FCA's judgment
as retrospectively invalidating the offence of marijuana
possession, trafficking and/or production in sections 4,5, and 7
of the CDSA.

JCT: I also argued that if the possession offence was invalid,
the other marijuana-related charges including my own possession
for the purpose of trafficking charge had to also be invalid. The
Ontario Court of Appeal rejected my argument and said that it was
possible to possess something legal for an illegal purpose. Har
har har. Justices Doherty, Goudge and Simmons are the same judges
as in the Hitzig case. Nice to see lawyers making the points I
had made that the learned judges rejected. Sort of proves I was
right and they were wrong all along.

CR: (2) The public interest in maintaining the offence provisions
of the CDSA

JCT: And if they lose, the offence provisions are no longer
maintained?

CR: 21. Members of the criminal defence bar have argued that s.4
of the CDSA is retrospectively invalid as a result of the
judgments of the courts below.

JCT: And members of Turmel's guerrilla lawyer army have been
making the argument a lot longer than these newbies.

CR: For example, defence counsel in the R. v. Poelzer appeal
before the B.C. Supreme Court argued that the FCA's judgment
means that Parliament failed to implement a constitutionally
acceptable scheme for ensuring a licit supply of marijuana for
medical reasons, as required in the Ontario Court of Appeal in
Hitzig, and that the prohibition of possession of marijuana is
therefore of no force and effect. While this argument was
rejected by the Court in that case, this has not prevented it
from being raised in other prosecutions.

JCT: Namely, all of ours. Parker, Martin, Turner, TO Trio,
Nielsens, even Turmel and Pierre Drouin.

CR: 22. In a judgment issued on Feb 2 2009, without written
reasons, Justice Koenigsberg of the B.C. Supreme Court declared
that s41(b.1) of the MMAR to be unconstitutional on the same
grounds as the FCA in this case, but suspended the declaration of
invalidity for one year. She went further and, on the same
grounds, struck down S.54.1 of the MMAR, which restricts the
number of licensed growers who can grow in common.
R. v. Beren, Feb 2 2009, (B.C.S.C. #131900)

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/09/04/2009BCSC0429.htm is
the decision in R. v. Beren. The highlights are:

[127] Adopting the reasoning in Hitzig and Sfetkopoulos, further
bolstered by the evidence before this court, I find ss. 41(b.1)
and 54.1 of the MMAR contrary to s. 7 of the Charter.

REMEDIES
[129] As the matter now stands, the federal Court of Appeal in
Sfetkopoulos declared s. 41(b.1) invalid and refused to suspend
that declaration. The case is under appeal to the Supreme Court
of Canada.

JCT: Was.

[133] The discussions set out above, in both Hitzig and then
Sfetkopoulos, suggest the admissibility of finding a means by
which compassion clubs can be licensed or regulated.  I use
compassion clubs as shorthand for persons who, once licensed and
regulated, may grow marihuana and cannabis for more than one ATP
holder. In order for such regulation to withstand Charter
scrutiny it must be done without unduly restricting the ability
of such organizations to take advantage of economies of scale,
carry out research on the efficacy of varying strains of
cannabis, and/or other desirable activities directed toward
improving access to medical treatments to eligible patients.

[134] Such regulation and licensing requires careful thought in
drafting. Consistent with the reasoning in Schachter v. Canada,
[1992] 2 S.C.R. 679, 93 D.L.R. (4th) 1, these provisions, unduly
restricting DPLs from growing for more than one ATP or growing in
concert with two other DPLs, are hereby severed from the MMAR.

[135] The government, in my view, will need time to put in place
appropriate monitoring and enforcement mechanisms in relation to
such compassion clubs.  Thus, it is appropriate to stay the
effect of this declaration of invalidity for one year.
"Koenigsberg J."
Feb 2 2009

JCT: Wow, another flaw has been declared in s.54.1 of the MMAR
that we didn't even know about!!! The MMAR is doubly
unconstitutional!! Hey, Michael Muirhead, are two flaws starting
to turn you optimistic?

RESPONDENTS' RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR STAY
Dated Mar 4 2009
Ron Marzel

JCT: The Alan Young-connected lawyer didn't deal with whether the
prohibition becomes invalid when the MMAR becomes invalid. We
know our medpot champion lawyer accepts that the flaw in the MMAR
does not invalidate the prohibition in the CDSA.
---

REPLY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

JCT: Nothing more on whether the prohibition is dead or not since
Ron Marzel has accepted it isn't.

ORDER
It is ordered that the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal
made Oct 27 2008 is hereby stayed pending further order of this
Court.

JCT: "Pending further order of the court" are 6 words we've seen
before in our dealings with David Frankel. This time, it's going
to be a bigger dog to bite him. It strengthens Terry's Krieger
card!
This is the exact wording used by Alberta Justice O'Leary in
staying the effect of the Krieger invalidation of S7 cultivation
prohibition letting Crown Attorney David Frankel argue that the
Krieger invalidation never took effect because the stay pending
further order survived the Final Order upon dismissal of their
appeal and still needed to be lifted. Of course, once the appeal
is dismissed and the court becomes functus officio, no motions
may be made to lift the stay so Frankel's Foible results in the
Krieger invalidation being stayed forever.

Now here at the Supreme Court, the execution of the Sfetkopoulos
invalidation of the MMAR was stayed "pending further order of
the court" which I argued is s standard phrase, not a prime
Order. And now that the Supreme Court has dismissed their case,
can the Crown now argue the Frankel Foible that the stay still
needs to be lifted (even though motions can't be filed after the
court is functus officio) and ergo, the Sfetkopoulos invalidation
is stayed forever a la Krieger?

Of course, I doubt they will dare raise the Frankel Foible to
argue the Sfetkopoulos decision remains stayed forever because a
stay pending further order of the court survives the Final Order
of the Court and still needs to be somehow lifted.

The Frankel Foible arguing that a stay pending appeal needs to be
lifted after the appeal is dismissed before the Krieger
invalidation took effect has been exposed by this analogous
situation at the Supreme Court as baseless and strengthens
Terry's ground that the prohibitions on cultivation and
possession were invalidated by Krieger in early 2003 making for a
seamless interval of invalidity between Terry Parker Day and now.

A third flaw in the prohibition strengthened. Feeling rosier
Michael?

So finally, on April 23 2009, the Supreme Court of Canada
dismissed the Crown's application for leave to appeal and all the
things the Crown says they fear will come true have hopefully
come true. Of course, even though they should stop prosecutions,
they're going to keep the machine slicing through the population
until a judge of a superior court comes to that conclusion
officially.

Isn't it incredible how much good stuff can be dug out of the
background material that no one ever expected anyone but the
judges to ever read? Har har har har.

What's interesting is that despite the claims of national
importance from the fear that the law will be declared invalid
since 2003, with another 300,000 bogus convictions to deal with,
the Supreme Court still rejected their appeal.

Of course, they didn't expunge the 100,000 bogus convictions
during the Parker two years and the the Supreme Court even helped
with the cover-up when it was pointed out to them. so they must
figure they'll refuse to expunge the next 300,000 bogus
convictions during the Sfetkopoulos interval of invalidity too.
The Supreme Court of Canada did nothing to correct the record
the last time hundred thousand bogus convictions registered were
pointed out, who bets they'll do anything to correct the record
now when it's soon pointed out the 300,000 bogus convictions
registered? And still being registered since April 23 2009 when
it became official.

My "Supplementary Written Representations on the Sfetkopoulos
MMAR invalidity rendering the marijuana prohibitions in the CDSA
of no force and effect" to Superior Court Justice Tulloch will be
filed at the Brampton courthouse on Monday.

Sorry Derek if I've had to focus on winning it for everyone but
just sit back and know you're legal for all sorts of medical and
non-medical reasons so whether you closely follow MMAR
regulations on supply issues can't be much of a worry, especially
when they know tangling with you is a war of attrition with them
on the expensive end. It's actually time for everyone who can to
go for the kill.

The Crown didn't say how many cases it feared were being fought
on this issue below. But it's going to be more and more.
Sure, it's a "stupid gimme" kind of win, prohibition is off
because of flimsy grower regulations rather than solid too-long
odds of finding doctors, or solid POLCOA with Parker and Krieger
invalidations, but if Health Canada wants make a stupid move to
gimme the ball in their own end zone, who am I to not to have
Terry Parker take it, sit down and score.

What an ending to the Parker saga. The first Superior Court
Declaration of S.4 being declared no longer known to law by the
same guy who got the Appeal Court ruling s.4(1) to be invalid.

What serendipitous coincidence in timing that it be Terry Parker
in court right now leading the final charge after having lead the
original charge and discovering a third nail to hammer in the
prohibition's coffin. It's like having this last Sfetkopoulos
card popping up on River to give him his Royal Flush. What
theatre!

And the best part of it all is that visually, it's not just some
guy disappearing after the charge is dismissed, it's the Crown
handing over a pound of pot to Terry Parker! I'll have a camera
there even if the major media don't.

I'll always respect Terry for standing firm 7 years ago when Alan
Young and Crown Lara Speirs tried to get him to swap Justice
Pitt's constitutional exemption "until the Government complies
with the court's ruling" for a S.56 exemption by the Minister of
Health or Justice Chapnik's exemption without that declaration
that the MMAR had failed to comply with the Parker ruling. So we
know that Alan and Lara wanted to get rid of, don't we. And we
never lost the Pitt declaration, first out of Superior Court,
that the MMAR had failed to comply, because Terry didn't take the
bribe.

And that enthused me into getting him into every court I could
until we're now at the serendipitous point that Terry's going to
win it all for us. Sorry if I'm gushing but imagine how
everything would be different today if he'd fallen for Alan's the
Crown's bribe.

My hat's off to you Terry, I'm just honored to have been given
the privilege of engineering your armaments for you. When I think
of how they robbed you of the credit in the Hitzig decision by
changing the style of cause from Appellant Terry Parker and
others to Respondent Hitzig and others, it's justice that you get
the credit for the final kill even if Alan robbed you of your
name on the all-important "Hitzig" decision.

Go look it up anyone. After a Justice had specifically titled the
consolidated appeals as Terry Parker, Hitzig et al, after that in
the Carthy decision you'll see that the style of cause is Terry
Parker, Hitzig, et al. But to give Alan Young credit, the Court
of Appeal surreptitiously changed it to Hitzig, Terry Parker et
al. Why would they switch names so the Respondent gets credit and
not the Appellant who initiated the issue? It's quite the theatre
and it's all recorded in 9 years worth of blog.

Interesting that the abolition of the prohibition of marijuana
may be taking place at the very same time as my project to
abolish interest rates takes root with interest-free community
currencies abounding all around the world and only a matter of
time until they adopt the Time Standard of Money and become
compatible with each other.

Imagine fixing usury and healing herb prohibition around the same
time. Either one will propel interest in the other. Then maybe I
can get them to legalise gambling and other joys in life.

JCT: I just got the background arguments at the Supreme Court of
Canada in Sfetkopoulos. Of course, what's interesting is what the
Crown fears will happen to prosecutions below that are arguing
that the marijuana prohibitions are invalid if the MMAR is
flawed!!!

What a bunch of morons to put the truth down thinking no one will
ever dig up the background documents, especially after I dug up
the Krieger documentation for the Crown's loss then that provided
that beautiful Frankel "Bingo" when he admitted that section 7
cultivation and by implication section 4 possession had been
struck down in Alberta with only stay pending appeal standing in
the way of legalisation once the appeal was dismissed!

Anyway, it's 200 pages to cull but I've already found a few
beauties:

From Paragraph 33 of the Attorney General of Canada's Memorandum
to the Supreme Court of Canada:

"The judgment may create confusion concerning the constitutional
validity of the prohibition against the possession of marihuana
as set out in S.4 of the CDSA and therefore compromise existing
prosecutions under the CDSA... The Court ruled in R. v. JP that
the combined effect of Parker and Hitzig meant there was no
constitutionally valid marijuana possession offence between July
31 2001 and Oct 7 2003, the date the MMAR were constitutionally
rectified by the decision in Hitzig. Courts may construe the
Federal Court of Appeal's decision as creating a similar period
of retrospective invalidity dating back to December 3 2003, the
date that s.41(b.1) was re-introduced into the MMAR."
Crown Attorney Sean Gaudet

Wow. Don't know if I should parse it now or on the weekend.

Anyway, stay tuned for all the bingos in the Crown's own words.
One more time:

"Courts may construe the Federal Court of Appeal's decision as
creating a similar period of retrospective invalidity dating back
to December 3 2003, the date that s.41(b.1) was re-introduced
into the MMAR."

Har har har har.

Turmel's yahoogroups.com/group/medpot Message Index
Updated Oct 31 2004

YEAR 2000
---------

JULY 19 2000
Our Turmel Family Medpot Patch is Raided by Hull Police 7/19

In Sep 2000, John "The Engineer" Turmel scores big in the
Abolish Interest Rates Project at the United Nations
Millennium Assembly by getting the UNILETS time-based
currency resolution C6 adopted in the United Nations
Millennium Declaration. After the UN, where else is there to
to so I moved out of Atlantic City to return to become
Canada's Medpot engineer in the war to abolish marijuana
prohibition.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/medpot/message/??? contain the
message archives of my combat engineering battle reports.
To read the article, replace the ??? in the message URL
For a list of headings, plural messages/??? in the URL

SEPTEMBER 2000:
2 MedPot.Net Start-up 9/15
3 Pariseau Affidavit for Judicial Review of Exemption Amendments
4 Federal Court Pro-Marijuana Challenge 9/16
5 LETS Digress to Laughing Grass 9/22
6 Federal Court grants Judicial Review of Marijuana Rules 10/17
13 Health Canada Marijuana Affidavit 11/4
14 Health Canada Marijuana Affidavit Reply 11/4
17 Federal Court Marijuana Memorandum 12/14

JANUARY 2001:
21 Health Canada Marijuana Memorandum 2/1

FEBRUARY 2001:
23 Pariseau can grow more marijuana 2/19

MARCH 2001:
25 Marijuana Exemptee fights Health Canada in Fed Court 3/14
26 Marijuana Exemptee v. Health Canada article in Le Droit 3/15
27 Health Canada fined for Marijuana Exemption Delays 3/16
28 Paquette Federal Court Pre-Win Press (francais too) 3/18
30 Paquette Federal Court Win Press (francais) 3/18
31 CBC News on Internet 3/19
32 Parry Sound LETS Candidate Report CBC coverage 3/19
33 Candidate Removal from Parry Sound Byelection 3/21
34 Parry Sound LETS Candidate Excluded from 3/21
35 Paquette asks Judge to censure Health Canada 3/26
36 Barry Burkholder Suing Health Canada for Exemption 3/28

APRIL 2001:
41 Hep C Marijuana Applicant Burkholder Raided by police 4/1
42 Burkholder Federal Court Marijuana Motion Documents 4/2
43 Bail money returned to accused marijuana grower 4/2
44 Marijuana Grower seeks Legal Aid for Fed Court transcripts 4/2
45 Neron joins Burkholder in Fed Court Marijuana case today 4/3
47 Neron on Marijuana on CBC-Radio Noon Friday 4/6
48 CBC-French 4/6
49 Three Marijuana Musketeers in Fed Court 4/6
50 Marijuana Judge says Health Canada chastisement "clear" 4/7
51 "Fabulous Five" Marijuana Applicants in Federal Court Apr 12 4/8
54 Internet Marijuana Media still silent 4/9
57 General Thoughts 4/10
62 Medpot.net news: 2001/04/10 4/10
63 Marijuana Applicants Win Big in Fed Court 4/12
64 globeandmail.com Marijuana story by Daniel Leblanc 4/13
65 Judge says 30 days to compel closure of marijuana applications 4/13
66 CBC on 30-day Marijuana ultimatums 4/14
67 Judge offers 30-day closure to Exemption Applicants 4/14
68 Paquette Judicial Review of Exemption Conditions 4/14
72 Cannabis Culture Rev. Damuzi hits nail on head 4/16
73 Marijuana Party LETS Tax Credit System 4/16
74 30-Day Ultimatum & Mandamus Fed Court Forms 4/16
75 May political parties join LETS? Tom Kennedy knows 4/16
77 Health Canada Affidavit & Submission on Mandamus 4/16
78 Neron on CBC radio today 6:30pm EDT 4/17
81 Swamp'em in red tape, now add an avalanche too 4/17
83 U.N. Globalisation Engineer counterprotest in Quebec 4/17
88 Anti-Drug Quebec Declaration 4/19
98 Omission costs Paquette weekend in hell 4/24
99 First Instant Marijuana 30-day Ultimatum 4/24
100 Late Health Canada wants more time. NO! 4/25
101 Student wants truth on marijuana 4/25
102 Health Canada Marijuana Director's Affidavit & Submissions 4/26
103 Dupuis tells Health Canada: pay for delay 4/30

MAY 2001:
105 How I led the FTAA Protest March in Quebec City 5/1
106 In May 5 Montreal Marijuana March 5/4
107 Cripple Denied Marijuana Exemption. CBC Mary Lou Findlay interview 5/18
108 Health Ministry denies marijuana to 3 cripples 5/22
111 John The Engineer's favorite media clips
113 Fab 5 Marijuana Refusals go to Fed Court 5/29
114 Five Sick refused marijuana go to Fed Court Thursday 5/30
115 Crown argues against medicine for dying man 5/30
117 Health Canada refuses 4 doctors' prescriptions - 5/31

JUNE 2001:
118 Fed Judge labels Health Canada doctor "Absurd" 6/3
121 Justice Teitelbaum thinking on Dying Donny's Marijuana 6/8
122 Great Doctor keeps failing Health Canada demands 6/11
124 Attorney General's Prefontaine late in Paquette 6/15
125 Health Canada's Dr. Gomber not a real M.D. 6/18
126 #2 Interest-Free Money Mathematics 6/19
128 Federal Court nixes Dying Donny marijuana 6/22
129 Health Canada cedes 7 Mari plants not enough 6/25
131 Health Canada wins extension to file Gomber Affidavit 6/27
132 C.P. breaks "No smoke for Dying Donny" story 6/28
133 Health Canada's Jody Gomber Affidavit 6/28
134 Dying Donny wins Marijuana Exemption! 6/30
138 Pariseau Exemption Review goes to judge 6/30

JULY 2001:
139 Govt. wants Court hearing on Pariseau's marijuana 7/9
141 Neron wins Marijuana Exemption 7/10
142 Court grants hearing on "important" Pariseau issues 7/11
143 Neron's Dr. Proulx spikes Health Canada with flair 7/12
145 Neron needs last hand to win 7/14
146 Questions for Health Canada Jody Gomber 7/18
147 Hep C "marijuana refusal" appeal to TO court July 30 7/21
148 Crown needs 3 more extensions of time 7/22
149 General Thoughts on Neron Marijuana case 7/22
150 Keystone Crowns typo error 7/22
152 Dying Don joins Burkholder in TO Court Monday 7/26
153 Third Marijuana Fighter in TO Court Monday 7/26
154 Marijuana's "Magnificent Seven" in Court Monday 7/27
155 Seniors for Pot Demonstration 9am at Toronto Courthouse 7/29
156 Last Notes Magnificent Seven in Toronto Fed Court 7/29
157 Charge of the Magnificent Seven in Toronto Federal Court 7/31

AUGUST 2001:
158 Fumble. Parker didn't get access. Touchdown. 8/1
159 "Magnificent Seven" are now "Eleven" 8/3
160 Magnificent Eleven to Supreme Court of Canada building
161 Incredible Heaven's Eleven Medpot week 8/4
163 Terry Parker's Last Word before Victory 8/6
164 "Heaven Eleven" seek Cannabis in Fed Court 8/6
165 Terry Parker Joins Marijuana Eleven at Supreme Court 8/6
166 Cannabis Heaven Eleven Flay Health Canada in Court 8/9
167 Dupuis-Massicotte Marijuana Refusals Reconsidered! 8/9
168 Marc Paquette asks court for marijuana seized in raids 8/14
170 Court ignores Paquette's Plea 8/15
171 List of Medpot court battle reports 8/15
172 Ontario Court of Appeal Parker Decision 8/15
173 Court Blasts Health Canada Failure to Supply Med Pot +Francais 8/15
175 #1 Paquette begs Court: Stop burning marijuana
176 #2 Paquette begs Court: Stop burning marijuana
177 #1 Health Canada Affidavit to 60 Marijuana Questions 8/21
178 #2 Health Canada Affidavit to 60 Marijuana Questions 8/21
180 Don Appleby's Written Representations
181 Ruling on "Give sick seized pot; at least stop the burn" 8/22
182 Health Canada allows Neron 54 Marijuana Plants 8/22
183 Keystone Krowns Updates: Dupuis, Appleby, Neron, Paquette 8/23
185 Recalcitrant doctors are bad Health Engineers 8/25
186 Allan Rock's Pharmacist of Death being examined 8/27
189 Dupuis Questions Pharmacist of Death 8/28
190 Pharmacist of Death crawls back under Rock 8/28

SEPTEMBER 2001:
194 Burkholder wins Medpot exemption despite refusal 9/5
195 #1 Pharmacist of Death Exam Transcript 9/7
196 #2 Pharmacist of Death Exam Transcript 9/7
197 #3 Pharmacist of Death Exam Transcript 9/7
198 Marijuana Exemptee Paquette's Arguments 9/7
200 Capital Xtra & Cannabis Culture News Article 9/11
202 Dupuis Marijuana Refusee Memorandum 9/18
205 Marylynne Chamney wins exemption 9/26
206 Robert Neron wins grow room and seeds back 9/26
207 Two Federal Crown's intervene in Ray Turmel 9/26
208 Health Canada's last say on Paquette mari 9/28
209 Keystone Crowns Late Again Twice 9/29

OCTOBER 2001:
211 CC: Canada's Medpot Engineer 10/9
212 Pharmacist of Death hiding from Massicotte 10/11
213 Marijuana Charges withdrawn against Denise Beaudoin 10/11
214 Keystone Crowns Late with Dupuis Memorandum 10/11
215 Keystone Crowns Late with Appleby Memorandum 10/11
216 Deal? All at once with Turmel or one at a time 10/15
218 Exemptees' Grower Diane Bruce Busted 10/23
219 Crown says No case consolidation No Turmel 10/23
220 Toronto Article in Federal Court Tomorrow 10/24
221 Crown wants to keep medpot plants from La 10/26
222 Paquette claims Bruce Raid medpot (Toronto Sun) 10/29
223 Court says Paquette must enforce Rock's exemption 10/28

NOVEMBER 2001:
224 Paquette stakes first medpot claim at Lad 11/1
225 Bin Laden says: War, no peace, without UN 11/4
227 [turmel], An Article from the globeandmail.com 11/5
229 Ray Turmel asks court to "Reverse Onus" 11/7
230 Toronto Star: Paquette claim on Medpot from Bruce raid 11/7
231 Turmel Visit to the Drugsense Chat Room
232 Terry Parker learns of new exemption! 11/7
234 Bust Threat to Cannabis Cup: Turmel attending 11/9
236 Dianne Bruce gets Medpot exemption 11/19
237 Court Ending Medpot Prohibition Today & Cannabis Culture 11/19
238 Medpot Prohibition Challenge goes to trial 11/19
239 Health minister subpoenaed (Ottawa Citizen) 11/22
240 The Engineer at Ottawa's IMF-WorldBank-G2 11/27

DECEMBER 2001:
242 Jury convicts Ray Turmel. Medpot grower facing life 12/4
244 Paquette's claim on seized medpot goes on 12/7
245 #1 Medpot Constitutional motions in Quebec 12/7
246 #2 Medpot Constitutional motions in Quebec 12/7
248 #3 Medpot Constitutional motions in Quebec 12/8
249 Arianna Huffington is Pretty Good 12/11
250 Google Update on John Turmel 12/12
251 Tonight's debate with Boris 12/16

JANUARY 2002:
252 Medpot.net Update 1/5
253 Titanic Trio's "Joint Submission" (Cobour Star) 1/8
254 #2 Titanic Trio seek Medpot in Cobourg Court 1/11
255 Paquette leads Medpot 5 to Fed Crt Tuesday 1/21
256 Medpot Law Challenged in Contempt Hearing 1/21
257 LETS info to Drugsense Chat group 1/24
258 Doonesbury or 1500 physicians lying 1/26
259 No Court dates before Paquette exemption 1/28
260 Crown loses motion to stall Dupuis 1/28
261 Paquette seeks Cobourg Medpot Again Monday 1/30

FEBRUARY 2002:
262 Medpot's Magnificent 7 in Fed Crt Tuesday 2/1
263 Paquette's Crown still unprepared after 3 2/5
264 Court can't find time for dying men 2/7
266 Ontario doctors say Medpot Access Harder! 2/15
268 Terry Parker joins Marc Paquette 2/17
269 Parker & Paquette & Turmel slowed but not stopped 2/19
271 Machiavelli Michols Nixes Beaudoin Exemption 2/26
272 Paquette takes OMA letter to Fed Crt Thur 2/26
273 Marc Paquette sur RDI-TV Jeudi 2-3pm 2/27
274 Paquette Offered First Exemption Prolongation 2/28

MARCH 2002:
275 Ministre de Sante McLellan replique a Marc Paquette 3/6
277 Lying Doctors back in the news 3/7
278 Two new Arab-Jewish LETS in Israel 3/8
279 Court tells Parker to enforce Order himself 3/9
281 Another Medpot.net Guerrilla Law Warrior? 3/10
283 Health Minister McLellan responds to Paquette 3/11
284 Justice Lemieux grants Paquette Early Review 3/11
285 Ray Turmel appeals 11 more medpot grounds 3/12
286 Evil Empire strikes back at "Medpot Marc" 3/12
287 Parker asks Court to declare Prohibition 3/13
288 Parker Wins Constitutional Exemption Extension 3/15
289 Parker Win in National Post 3/20
290 Medecins du Quebec (avant-apres RAMM) 3/21
291 "Medpot Marc" Paquette strikes back at Evil Empire 3/21
292 speaking at Concordia U Montreal Saturday 3/22
293 Crown appeals Parker's medpot extension 3/24
294 Crown's case to cancel Parker's medpot exemption 3/26
295 Evil Empire's Reply to "Medpot Marc" Paquette 3/30

APRIL 2002:
296 "Medpot Marc"'s Reply to Evil Empire 4/1
297 Parker files for abolition of prohibition 4/2
298 Reyklin wins a Parker in B.C. 4/3
299 Prohibition abolition delayed, Young save day 4/5
300 Cannabis Culture's too "Hot Tamale" 4/6
301 Wants Marijuana Party leadership for Harper 4/7
302 Paquette gets 1st S.56 Exemption extension 4/8
303 Parker and Crown file April 17 Motions 4/10
304 Marijuana Party Leader Poll 4/12
305 Crown's last delay blocked for Parker motion 4/12
306 Assets to Marijuana Party of Canada... 4/14
307 Ramifications of Parker Win 4/16
308 Prince of Pot demands leadership 4/16
309 Young gets adjournment for end of prohibition 4/18
310 Yahoo Audio Chat tonight 9pm 4/18
311 Prof. Allan Young: Klutz or Saboteur 4/19
313 Judge Chapnik sets aside Parker's exemption 4/19
315 Smear-Turmel campaign takes off 4/20
316 Boris St-Maurice calls Turmel crook 4/20
317 More on Professor Young's betrayal: 4/21
318 Boris Picks Rhino Economics over LETS 4/21
319 Prof. Young admits Parker sabotage 4/22
320 In 54th Guinness Record election, missed 4/22
321 Steven Bacon blows Dianne Bruce's bail 4/22
322 Appeal Court says Pitt v. Chapnik next week 4/23
323 Prince of Pot to Prince of Rot 4/24
324 Parker's Court of Appeal Documents 4/24
325 DaWeedKing's Montreal Party Convention Report 4/24
326 Why I destroyed the Marijuana Party of Canada 4/25
327 Steven Bacon fails to lose Dianne's home. 4/25
328 Election Forum Censored by Cannabis Vulture 4/25
329 Poetic Justice for Young, Emery, St-Maurice 4/26
330 Why the hard hat? 4/28
331 Prince of Rot runs for Vancouver Mayor 4/28
332 #2 Election forum censored by Cannabis Vulture 4/28
333 Alison Myrden shows The Engineer is best 4/28
334 Dianne Bruce can still lose home 4/28
335 Crown's "Pitt v. Chapnik" Parker Factum 4/29
336 Engineer saps Prof Young's Ivory Tower 4/29
337 Judge Feldman reserves on Pitt v Chapnik 4/30

MAY 2002:
338 Crown's bum affidavit gets in Paquette case 5/2
339 Engineer ducks O.P.P. arrest 5/3
340 Richard Lake opposes invalidating prohibition 5/3
341 Paquette appeals documents refusal 5/4
342 Poaching Professor foiled by quick thinking 5/4
343 Marc Scott Emery's hidden shame 5/4
344 Is Marc-Emery pro-censorship? 5/5
345 Judge Feldman nixes Parker protection 5/6
347 Foul-mouth Emery on Medpot Exemptees 5/6
349 Alan Young sabotages Terry's Appeal too 5/7
351 Terry Parker posts on Cannabis Culture 5/7
352 MedpotMarc foils Emery's criticisms 5/7
353 Prince of Rot Emery endangers Exemptees' 5/8
354 Wants Alan Young disbarred by Law Society 5/9
355 Judge stacks deck against Paquette 5/10
356 Marc Emery continues to censor posts 5/11
357 Paquette's Judicial Review Arguments 5/11
358 Vancouver Mayor candidate Emery responds 5/12
359 Tippy-Toes Tap-dancing on Table-Tops at Party 5/12
360 Judge Beaudry reserves on Paquette Judicial Review 5/13
361 Callous Coven of Cruel Crones 5/14
362 Stop reading my posts if you don't want to 5/14
364 Ottawa Citizen: Paquette Judicial Review 5/15
365 Alan Young strikes again in JCT Contempt Trial 5/15
366 #1 Paquette v. Health Canada Judicial Review 5/17
367 #2 Paquette v. Health Canada Judicial Review 5/17
368 Patriquin defends Rock and Cripps-Prawak 5/18
369 Law Society Probes Poaching Professor Young 5/19
370 U.S. enters Canadian Medpot War 5/19
371 How I destroyed the Carleton U Cabal
372 #1 Lake Explains Young's Sabotage 5/20
373 #2 Lake Explains Young's Sabotage 5/20
374 #3 Lake Explains Young's Sabotage 5/20
375 #1 Michael Muirhead puts Richard Lake to flight 5/22
376 #2 Michael Muirhead puts Richard Lake to flight 5/22
377 Multiple-sclerosis group now off list 5/22
378 Lake & Company strike back; don't answer 5/22
379 Ray Turmel 2 appeal grounds in, 13 out 5/23
380 Menu reduced without consent 5/23
381 Another Alan Young Loser on the go 5/24
383 Narc Agent 86: MAXWELL "not-too-SMART" YOUNG 5/26
384 Feed cut to A.M.M-S not by your choice 5/26
385 #1 Cannabis Culture Parker case build-up 5/26
386 #2 Cannabis Culture Parker case build-up 5/26
387 CompassionateMoms Censor Paws in Maws 5/27
388 "Wrong Way" Young Caps Court Clutz Career in Crapper 5/27
389 Re: "Wrong Way" Young Caps Court Clutz Career in Crapper 5/27
390 NCF's DiCola forged Medpot "quackery" complaint 5/27
391 Ray Turmel may get another Parker shot to end the law 5/29
392 Ganja Gilligan Young goofs Great Gvt-Grass-Grow Grab 5/29
393 Re: Ganja Gilligan Young goofs Grass-Grow 5/29
394 Turmel goofs Ganja Gilligan Young joke 5/29

JUNE 2002:
395 Argentina from 500 to 5000 LETS (francais) 6/1/2002
396 Journal de Montreal Senate Hearing Report 6/3/
397 Seasoned Six Seek Senate Spliff Support in Montreal 6/4/
398 More Medpot tragedies: Pariseau (AIDS) jailed for fines 6/4/
399 2002 in the Sault  Hempfest 2002 6/6/
400 JCT's "End Prohibition" Parker Motion 6/7
401 CPAC Senate Montreal Hearing real soon 6/7
402 One less Medpot tragedy: Pariseau out on bail 6/7
403 A mute rabbit out of the hat? 6/7
404 Forge-posting Mona, Roarke, Ethan's posts 6/8
405 BBSNews: Oh the Politics of Drug Policy R 6/8
406 #2 Forge-posting Mona, Roarke, Ethan's posts 6/9
407 5 Aces bets 10:1 to Young's busted flush 6/9
408 Yahoogroups Audio Chats on tap 6/10
409 Richard Lake, put up or shut up 6/10
410 Ganja Grannies for Boris judgment in Mtl 6/12
411 11 Neo Quebec LETS-SELs on CBC French Radio 6/12
412 Teaming up with Traitors?? 6/13
413 Montreal Medpot trial's new evidence 6/14
415 Montreal Gazette "Pot rules are rules: Crown 6/15
416 Another Medpot Guerrilla on attack? 6/16
417 Crown fox gets mute rabbit 6/17
418 Where's yahoogroups.com/group/compassionatemoms 6/18
419 Paquette tries to get docs in again 6/21
420 Dupuis carps to cops about Health Canada  6/22
421 MedPot 'warrior' gets Year & Half  6/22
422 Global anti-bank movement leaders?  6/23
423 Judas Judiciary of Canada's Great Depress  6/24
424 LETS give Emery a nightmare he'll never f  6/25
425 Crown wants no docs in Medpot Marc's Judi  6/26
429 Stalking the snake at G8 in Ottawa  6/30
430 Bitchcraft beefs bear browsing?  6/30

JULY 2002:
431 Jailed MedPot 'warrior' seeks release Jul 7/2
432 Jailed MedPot 'warrior' released pending 7/4
433 Get-out-of-jail forms for Quebec & Canada 7/6
434 Get-out-of-jail Forms Instructions 7/8
435 Get-out-of-jail forms NOT waste of time 7/10
436 Great TVAMedpot Debate 12:30Vanc. Starc.7 7/11
438 JCT Trial: LeDroit reports 7/13
439 Judge Beaudry Pans Paquette's Peeve 7/14
440 #2 Judge Beaudry Pans Paquette's Peeve 7/14
441 Arianna needs LETS for Medpot Justice 7/16
442 Media sits on Get-out-of-jail forms 7/17
443 Crown wants Young back in Parker case!! 7/18
444 Get-out-of-jail forms at Bordeaux Thursda 7/18
445 CBC-TV Montreal Friday 6:30pm Get-out-of 7/19
446 Crown bluffs for Parker extension of time 7/20
447 Pot-heads jailbreak in Journal de Montrea 7/21
448 Get-out-of-jail media reports 7/22
449 TVA Francois Paradis Show has Andree Boucher 7/22
450 Young steals lead on Parker 7/25
451 Robbed by Bonnie Speirs & Clyde Young 7/27
452 Alan Young's lying two-faced letter 7/27
453 Proof of Richard Lake censorship? 7/28
454 Lake pained by Medpot gadfly & court jest 7/29
455 Winners never quit so Parker won't quit 7/29
456 #1 Guilty Philippe Lucas wins Discharge 7/30
457 #2 Guilty Philippe Lucas wins Discharge 7/30
458 Ottawa Valley Compassion Club Sting? 7/30
459 "Reverse Onus" in Quebec Cour of Appeal 7/31

AUGUST 2002:
460 Young cheats Parker but loses anyway 8/3
464 Alan Young's "Hitzig Application" Documen 8/5
465 Re: Young cheats Parker but loses 8/5
466 Alan Young's Notices Parsed 8/5
467 #1 Alan Young's Hitzig Index of Affidavit 8/8
468 #2 Alan Young's Hitzig Index of Affidavit 8/8
469 Turmel-Paquette file for Aug.22 Parker De 8/8
470 Paquette Appeals Beaudry "Moot" Ruling 8/9
471 Can GVT Won't Let Decrim Happen Anytime S 8/9
472 Speaking in Montreal 3:15pm 8/9
473 Parker files Supreme Court Motion to Expe 8/9
474 Medpot a SEL-JEU Quebec reunion 8/11
475 Turmel-Paquette "Kill-the-law" Affidavits 8/15
476 Crown stalls Turmel&Paquette to Hitzig to 8/17
477 Von Mises Misses Masses' Message in Worgl 8/17
478 Sorry for post to wrong list 8/17
479 Crown Factum for Turmel&Paquette Stay 8/20
480 Crown tries Supreme Court Stall 8/20
481 Health Minister McLellan joins dinosaurs 8/20
482 Reply to Motion to stall genocide end 8/21
483 Judge reserves on hearing abolish motion 8/24
484 Crown resists Paquette's Expedited Appeal 8/24
485 Paquette Corrects Crown on irreparable harm 8/26
486 Crown tries stall with T&P Affidavit Exams 8/27
487 Turmel-Paquette Responses to Crown's Stall on Affidavits 8/27
488 Parker joins Turmel-Paquette in L'Orignal Aug 29 2002 8/28
489 "Deny Parker's Pitt protection now" Crown to Supreme Court 8/28
490 Le Carillon: Turmel-Paquette reportage 8/28
491 Judge Charbonneau grants Paquette-Turmel everything 8/30
492 Senate MedPot Report next Wednesday 8/31

SEPTEMBER 2002:
493 Censorship at Can Med Marijuana Association 9/1
495 Cripps-Prawak GVT Affidavit in Hitzig 9/2
496 #2 Cripps-Prawak GVT Affidavit in Hitzig 9/2
497 Senate Exhibit in Turmel-Young medpot case 9/5
498 Le Carillon: Charbonneau Sends Paquette to Toronto 9/5
499 Final Turmel-Paquette Affidavits/Exhibits 9/5
500 Cannabis Quebec Magazine a little late 9/7
501 New s.56 Extension Form Raven 9/8
502 Attorney General lies for delay 9/12
503 Crown gets to disobey Judge Charbonneau 9/13
504 Paquette & Beaudoin on RDI-TV 11:30am Tuesday 9/16
505 #1 Health Canada Anti-Medpot Affidavit 9/16
506 #2 Health Canada Anti-Medpot Affidavit 9/16
507 #3 Health Canada Anti-Medpot Affidavit 9/16
508 #4 Health Canada Anti-Medpot Affidavit 9/16
509 #5 Health Canada Anti-Medpot Affidavit 9/17
510 #1 Health Canada "Hitzig" Memorandum 9/17
511 #2 Health Canada "Hitzig" Memorandum 9/17
512 #3 Health Canada "Hitzig" Memorandum 9/17
513 #4 Health Canada "Hitzig" Memorandum 9/17
514 #5 Health Canada "Hitzig" Memorandum 9/17
515 #6 Health Canada "Hitzig" Memorandum 9/17
516 #7 Health Canada "Hitzig" Memorandum 9/17
517 Health Canada "Turmel-Paquette" Memorandum 9/17
518 Cripps-Prawak Exam; Judge Change; Globe & Mail 9/18
519 Paquette-Parker Super but Young noses in our case again 9/21
520 Cops called in Turmel-Young Court battle 9/22
521 TOESLIST bites the dust of censorship 9/22
522 Young steals Paquette-Parker thunder 9/22
523 Hon. Don Boudria misleads on Medpot 9/23
524 JCT Admissions for Contempt Trial tomorrow: 9/23
525 Re:Young steals Paquette-Parker thunder ontnews023 9/24
526 (no subject) ontnews023 9/25
527 Cripps-Prawak can show no dormants alive!!! 9/26
528 Alan Young's court interference explained? 9/26
529 Altercation...turmel vs turmel ontnews023 9/27
530 One-man altercation... ontnews023 9/28
531 #2 Alan Young's court interference explained? 9/28
532 #2 Turmel vs. Reality 9/28
533 Turmel vs. Reality 9/28
535 Paquette wants Cindy Affidavit in his appeal 9/29
536 Young taints Parker-Turmel-Paquette hearing 9/29
537 Turmel ousted, Young was already gone... 9/29
538 Parker-Turmel-Paquette Toronto hearing extra 9/30
539 Ouvrir le dibat sur la dipinalisation Midecins du Monde 9/30
541 Le Droit: Turmel Fined $250 for Contempt of Court 9/30

OCTOBER 2002:
542 Don Appleby courting trouble 10/1
543 Don Appleby courting trouble 10/1
544 Paquette wants Cindy Affidavit in his appeal 10/1
545 Young taints Parker-Turmel-Paquette hearing 10/1
546 Arianna on Marijuana and Corporate Crime 10/1
547 Paquette fights Att.Gen. over Cripps-Prawak Affidavit 10/4
548 Begging for busts or busting for deaths 10/5
549 Cauchon & McLellan screw Paquette to the wall 10/6
550 Parker & Paquette get last-minute reprieves!!! 10/7
551 Lake puts feet-in-mouth; GEM and Hess help 10/8
553 Young & Walters on Global 10/9
554 Alan Young still looking for victims 10/11
555 DAMN TURMEL- YOU DID IT AGAIN! 10/11
556 #2 DAMN TURMEL- YOU DID IT AGAIN! 10/12
557 Joshua Tinnin: "Turmel is banned from WNSP" 10/12
558 Renda's Rotten Reasons for Interfering 10/12
559 #2 Joshua Tinnin: "Turmel is banned from WNSP" 10/13
560 Meehan alleges Turmel tax-credit fraud 10/13
561 #2 Renda's Rotten Reasons for Interfering 10/13
562 "Yes Minister" Humphrey Appleby on Polls 10/14
563 "REAL Women of Canada" Are Not 10/15
564 Why Young called cops in TO Courts 10/15
565 MEDUSERS shun LGLIZEIT good 10/16
566 Rancid Steve Bacon flubs fraud charge johnturmel 10/16
567 Moles in the Medpot Movement? 10/16
568 Self-defeating egos 10/16
569 Game Theory says Tag-Team Wins 10/16
570 Yahoogroups parallel ads maddening 10/17
571 Judge has no time for genocide argument 10/19
572 Ganja Gilligan Young's Great Grass Grab makes news 10/20
573 More "Great Grass Grab" Press 10/20
574 Sonnyboy Steve makes best cat-fight report 10/20
575 Pas de santi sans toit ni droit! 10/23
576 Justice Lederman's Biggest Question 10/23
578 Marc Emery: mouse of a man with money? 10/23
579 10,000 dead epileptics and growing 10/23
580 Poetry, Politics, Accordion with Turmel 10/26
581 Eric Young's Constitutional Challenge Update 10/28
582 #2 Poetry, Politics, Accordion with Turmel 10/30

NOVEMBER 2002:
583 Party Resurrection 11/10
584 Cult of Impotence 11/10
585 Proud Gramps was WWI Draft Dodger 11/11
586 MP ignores upcoming opposition 11/13
587 Registration of Canada Libertarian Party 11/13
588 No rush to fax member signatures till next week 11/14
589 Karma bites NDP undemocratic weakness 11/15
590 Ontario Libertarian Cash-Credits for goods 11/16
591 Libertariens, Sellistes, Abolitionnists, autres au Quebec 11/16
592 Libertarian credits for receipts 11/17
593 Housing in Heaven? by Stephan Hawranick Serra 11/17
594 Last/derniere chance to/de found/fonder Libertarian Party 11/18
595 20021120 LETS Mail / Couriel SEL 11/20
596 SEL Ingenieur au Foire de JEU Quebec Dimanche 11/22
597 SEL Ingenieur aux Berets Blancs a Rougemont aussi 11/23
598 Foire de JEU Quebec & Berets Blancs de Rougemont 11/27
599 Poetry, Politics, Accordion 11/27
600 #2 LETS Web pages 11/29
601 Libertarian: No to debt liberty? Non au liberte des debt 11/29
602 REUTERS Argentina LETS-SEL swapping-echange 11/30

DECEMBER 2002:
603 #2 REUTERS Argentina LETS-SEL swapping-echange 12/2
604 Ghana Getting Good Green - Ghana aura du bon vert 12/3
605 Sections 7, 8 & 15 Charter Challenge in Victoria, BC Raven 12/3
606 Incredible Argentina Debt-free? 12/11
607 Can interest be paid? 12/11
608 Response to complaint to NCF 12/12
609 Justice Minister Cauchon protects Biker interests 12/12
610 Bill Graham sell-outs Canada sovereignty 12/12
611 Still praying for the golden asteroid 12/13
612 Friedman's golden asteroid? Mea Culpa 12/14
613 Usurer sees no link between Prohibition and Debt 12/15
614 Laplace Transforms and Demurrage 12/16
615 Tom Greco's foot in mouth on Timemoney 12/16
616 A Parker Challenge in Windsor? 12/16
617 Eden with Wild wonderful winning words 12/17
618 Arianna Much-Appreciated on Apostrophes 12/17
619 Argentinians pay taxes in timecreditos!!! 12/18
620 UK Benefits unaffected by LETS earnings! 12/18
621 Marijuana decision still up in air: PM 12/20
622 UK Timedollars need UNILETS 12/20
623 Judge Cadieux rules "Prohibition kills" 12/20
624 #2 Argentinians pay taxes in timecreditos!!! 12/22
625 #2 UK Timedollars need UNILETS 12/22
626 Argentine Catastrophe Isn't 12/23 20
627 HOPE, JUSTICE & PEACE for OUR millenium 12/23
628 #2 HOPE, JUSTICE, PEACE & CANNABIS for OUR millenium 12/24
629 Christ fought for LETS and Abolition of usury 12/26

JANUARY 2003:
630 Dupuis Judicial Review Thursday 1/8
631 Tom Kennedy to Jon Chance... 1/12
632 Dupuis Judicial Review Upgraded 1/12
633 Judge Lederman rules MMAR unconstitutional 1/12
634 Montreal Compassion Club "Cadieux Decision" 1/14
635 #2 Montreal Compassion Club "Cadieux Decision" 1/15
636 #3 Montreal Compassion Club "Cadieux Decision" 1/16
637 Lederman leaves exemptees at mercy of black market 1/16
638 #4 Montreal Compassion Club "Cadieux Decision" 1/17
639 "Time's-up on Parker" Windsor "Phillips Decision" 1/17
640 #2 "Time's-up on Parker" Windsor "Phillips Decision" 1/17
641 Justice Lederman's "weak" arithmetic? 1/20
642 "Lederman Decision" Ontario Superior Court 1/21
643 #2 "Lederman Decision" Ontario Superior Court 1/21
644 #3 "Lederman Decision" Ontario Superior Court 1/21
645 #4 "Lederman Decision" Ontario Superior Court 1/21
646 #5 "Lederman Decision" Ontario Superior Court 1/22
647 Alan Young's MedPot Win? What win? 1/24
648 #2 Alan Young's Medpot Win? What win? 1/25
649 MedPot Marc Paquette's Memorandum at FedCrtAppeal 1/28
650 Feb 7 2003 D-Day for Prohibition in Canada 1/28
651 Tippy-Toes Turmel Montreal Assault Trial Friday 1/29
652 Legal Beagle Burstein's Lederman Interpretation 1/29
653 Mar 10 2003 D-Day #2 for Prohibition in Quebec 1/30

FEBRUARY 2003:
654 Genocide is "inflicting on a group conditions of life..." 2/3
655 Crown Factum opposing Prohibition D-Day 2/4
656 Prohibition inflicts death on a group: genocide 2/4
657 Nightmares "Winning Through Intimidation" 2/6
658 Prohibition D-Day Reply to Crown Factum 2/7
659 Lederman decision must be appealled 2/10
660 Supreme Court Canada rules Thurs on Parker Pitt Protection 2/11
661 Crown appeals Lederman; need funds for Alan Young 2/11
662 Last Intimidations to win? 2/12
663 St. Valentine's Day CDSA Massacre Friday 2/12
664 Crown resists St Valentine's CDSA Massacre 2/12
665 #2 St Valentines Day Massacre 2/13
666 Supreme Court nixes Parker's Pitt Protection 2/13
667 Evil Empire of Amerika posts 2/16
668 #3 St Valentine Day Massacre ("Johnson") 2/17
669 #2 Evil Empire of Amerika & Marco Renda 2/17
670 Tiny Terrible Typo Troubles Attorney General 2/17
671 No Valentine's Day CDSA Massacre: judge 2/19
672 Genocide John's cut and paste jobs 2/19
673 Parker & Turmel in Windsor after filing appeal 2/20
674 Evil Shyster intervenes in Windsor case 2/22
675 #2 Genocide John's cut and pasties 2/23
676 Charbonneau J. on Lederman J. decision 2/25
677 Court ruling on Valentine's Day CDSA Massacre 2/25
678 Wakeford needs Ganja Gilligan Young 2/25

MARCH 2003:
680 Alan Young's Shyster Cabal intervenes in Windsor 3/1
681 Richard Lake with Paul Burstein 3/2
682 Jurisdiction. ed24112003 ed2411@... 3/2
683 Jurisdiction ed24112003 ed24112003@... 3/2
684 Parker pushing at the Court of Appeal again 3/3
685 Childish rantings and ravings, Pearson says 3/3
686 Paul Burstein's Big Betrayal 3/3
687 Matt Elrod supports Alan Young's shyster moles 3/4
688 Pearson's Ploys... 3/4
689 "Kid Windsor" champions abolition March 11 3/4
690 Parker exemption expires, sees Court tomorrow 3/4
691 Medpot.net Battle Reports Updates 3/6
692 Attorney General moves on Parker-Turmel-Paquette 3/9
693 Wizard of Odds back to Lederman re: weak math 3/9
694 Judge Lederman woefully ignorant of science 3/10
695 Crown wins in Quebec Superior Court 3/10
696 Windsor Kid & Bulldog Burstein chomp Crown's case 3/15
697 Judge in Summerside stays pot possession charge 3/15
698 CBC: P.E.I. judge frees man on pot possession 3/15
699 Pearson's Prong Pillorying Pot Prohibition 3/16
700 Summerside PEI Court Challenge 3/16
701 Piss on Cameroon's Kidney Milk Ban 3/16
702 Appeals of Lederman to OCA Justice Moldaver 3/17
703 Pearson finds PEI Thompson "NO-LAW" Decision 3/18
704 Kidney Milk is Best Medicine 3/18
705 Hearing to fix Lederman Order 3/18
706 Bush Bunch Baying for Bloodshed 3/18
707 Barry Burkholder debates lying Sudbury cop 3/19
708 Re: [ijccr]Bush Bunch Baying for Bloodshed 3/19
709 Hop to Parker's exemption says Judge Gillese 3/19
710 Professors for Peace another judas goat Org 3/20
711 Judas Goat Professors for Peace? 3/21
712 No exemption so Parker back to court 3/21
713 Crown gets Parker exemption in nick of time 3/21
714 #3 Judas Goat Professors for Peace? 3/21
715 #2 Crown gets Parker exemption in nick of time 3/21
716 #4 Judas Goat Professors for Peace? 3/22
717 Crown Memorandum vs. MedPot Marc Paquette at FedCrtAppeal 3/22
718 Stephen "Jr. GI Joe" Harper wants in on bloodshed 3/23
719 #A "Professor Moriarity" Young still chasing 3/23
720 #B "Professor Moriarity" Young still chasing 3/23
721 Ottawa Crown screws up Toronto Crown's plans 3/26
722 Cindy Cripps-Prawak explains dormants on Friday! 3/26
723 Cripps-Prawak grants Paquette 12 month exemption 3/26
724 Young Legal Beagles fail to file cross-appeal 3/26
725 Ottawa Crown fixes up plans 3/27
726 Crown ducks exam of Math Affidavit 3/28
727 Cripps-Prawak Exam mooted by Paquette exemption 3/28
728 Another "Marijuana Prohibition is Gone" Case 3/29
729 George "Halcion Junkie" Bush leading world to war? 3/29

APRIL 2003:
730 Move to sever from Professeur Saboteur Young 4/1
731 Alan Young blows 2nd extension to cross-appeal 4/3
732 Court of Appeal Weiler Hearing 4/4
733 Third Province judge says CDSA Prohibition Dead 4/4
734 Professeur Saboteur Young off like a leech 4/5
735 Professor Alan Young, Fraud Freedom-Fighter 4/5
736 Turmel's Just a Fraud, Richard Lake 4/6
737 Ed Pearson seeks Mandamus and Prohibition 4/6
738 Bush not Halcion Junkie! It's worse 4/6
739 #2 Stephen "Jr. GI Joe" Harper wants in on bloodshed 4/6
740 Has Cen been Bush-whacked? 4/7
741 50years.org Judas Goats lead WB-IMF parade 4/8
742 20030412 LETS Mail / Couriel SEL 4/12
743 Anti-War demo on Parliament Hill 4/13
744 Debate vs Bernard "The Banker" Lietaer in Germany July? 4/16
745 #2 Debate vs Bernard "The Banker" Lietaer 4/17
746 Quebec "Unknown to law" Motion zapped 4/21
747 Alan Young taints our case again 4/21
748 #2 Turmel's Just a Fraud 4/21
749 Cannabis Cafes? Nova Scotia Appeal! Slow judge? 4/21
750 #A Crown's Lederman Factum 4/27
751 #B Crown's Lederman Factum 4/27
752 #C Crown's Lederman Factum 4/27
753 #D Crown's Lederman Factum 4/27x
754 Parker-Turmel-Paquette Lederman Factum 4/29
755 #2 Parker-Turmel-Paquette Lederman Factum 4/29

MAY 2003:
756 On CFRA Sunday MedPot debate with police 5/2
757 Solo Ottawa Million Man Marijuana March 5/3
758 #2 Factum emailled? 5/3
759 Visit to Kingston 5/3
760 Censorship battles: 5/4
761 Quebec Crown trying to duck hearing again 5/4
762 #A CFRA MedPot Debate with RCMP 5/5
763 #B CFRA MedPot Debate with RCMP 5/6
764 #C CFRA MedPot Debate with RCMP 5/6
765 Quebec Crown gets 3 weeks. Terrorism too 5/7
766 #2 Solo protest at Ottawa Million Man March 5/7
767 A test for The Maitreya? 5/7
768 Supreme Court Clay-Malmo-Levine-Caine Report 5/7
769 Usury & Cannabis Talk at COMER Kingston Sunday 5/7
770 Censors at The_Pagan-Way, TOES, Richard Lake 5/9
771 Medpot Dinosaur Paul Martin prompts action 5/9
772 ParentsEndingProhibition Dies today 5/10
773 #2 ParentsEndingProhibition Dies 5/10
774 #2 ParentsEndingProhibition Dies 5/10
775 Velveeta Reports for the monkeys 5/12
776 Canadian Cannabis Coalition of Morons and Moles 5/12
777 Lake wins death of parentsendingprohibition 5/12
778 Young & Crew late again with Lederman factum 5/13
779 Censors at The_Pagan-Way, Response By Sir Raymond E,
Nieman D.D. HKOS amberadept 5/14
780 I dare gamble life-imprisonment 5/14
781 Out of jail on own recognizance 5/15
782 In the belly of the beast 5/15
783 More on why Medpot Decrim delayed 5/16
784 #A Hitzig et al Factum at Court of Appeal. 5/16
785 Not using brain cells? 5/16
786 #B Hitzig et al Factum at Court of Appeal. 5/17
787 #C Hitzig et al Factum at Court of Appeal. 5/17
788 canada.com Story 5/17
789 An article from globeandmail.com John The Engineer johnturmel 5/17
790 My ISP doesn't get my mail no more 5/17
791 Justice Rogin rules law died on Terry Parker Day!!!! 5/17
792 #D Hitzig et al Factum at Court of Appeal. 5/17
793 Cannabis Vulture Marc Emery's Censor Tantrum 5/17
794 #E Hitzig et al Factum at Court of Appeal. 5/18
795 Emery's Canabis Culture Misleads Movement 5/18
796 Rogin decision declaring law's funeral over 5/19
797 Parsed Rogin decision on prohibition death 5/19
798 Monday Motion to Quash; Mandamus; Prohibition; Vary 5/21
799 Asked Jean Chretien about pound of pot today 5/21
800 Cannabis Vulture Emery loses when law dies 5/23
801 "Chicken Balls" Emery won't dare 5/23
802 Judas Alan Young says prohibition is not yet dead 5/24
803 Hearts and Minds follow Balls 5/25
804 Alternatives.ca on Global Barter 5/26
805 #2 Moles in the Medpot Movement? Bank movement. 5/27
806 CMMA Mad Hobbit still jailed 8 months for 4 ounces 5/28
807 Alan Young pans Rogin's Canada-wide decision 5/28
808 Renda Rues Recent Rants on Funding Hitzig case 5/28
809 Justice Aitken won't quash possession for trafficking 5/29
810 Is cannabis on Schedule II for bail condition? 5/29
811 Pro-cannabis protest in Taipei Times 5/29
812 FW: [CO-CURE] RES: Cannabis use for chronic non-cancer pain: results H
Ramelan hudjr 5/30
813 #A Marijuana Media Manipulation: "loosening" tightens law 5/30
814 #B Marijuana Media Manipulation: "loosening" tightens law 5/30
815 #C Marijuana Media Manipulation: "loosening" tightens law 5/30
816 Crown appeals Rogin Decision 5/30
817 Young's Ivory Tower sapped by The Engineer 5/30
818 Prozac in baby's pablum? 5/30
819 #D Marijuana Media Manipulation: "loosening" tightens law 5/31
820 #2 Crown appeals Rogin Decision 5/31
821 #2 Marijuana Media Manipulation: "loosening" tightens law 5/31

JUNE 2003:
822 #A: CFRA Prof. Cammy Show: Driving on Medpot 6/1
823 Justice Aitken varies JCT bail condition 6/2
824 #B: CFRA Prof. Cammy Show: Driving on Medpot 6/3
825 #C: CFRA Prof. Cammy Show: Driving on Medpot 6/3
826 #D: CFRA Prof. Cammy Show: Driving on Medpot 6/3
827 Kid Windsor machine-guns 24 Crown cases!!! 6/4
828 Dupuis says marijuana cultivation not banned too 6/4
829 #E: CFRA Prof. Cammy Show: Driving on Medpot 6/4
830 Alan Young explains Parker case sabotage 6/4
831 #F: CFRA Prof. Cammy Show: Driving on Medpot 6/5
832 #2 Alan Young explains Parker case sabotage 6/5
833 80 MedPot cases screwed in London 6/5
834 #G: CFRA Prof. Cammy Show: Driving on Medpot 6/6
835 Toronto Police will bust but not charge 6/6
836 #H: CFRA Prof. Cammy Show: Driving on Medpot 6/6
837 Feds seek to plug medpot hole 6/6
838 Rogin smashed by Fundamental Justice 6/7
839 Ottawa Media Suppress Turmel MedPot campaign 6/7
840 #B Rogin smashed by Fundamental Justice 6/8
841 Consolidating Charbonneau-Rogin 6/9
842 Can I intervene in Windsor appeal Tuesday? 6/10
843 Can I intervene in Windsor appeal Tuesday? 6/10
844 Three Reserved Decisions on Rogin-consolidation 6/10
845 Charbonneau-Rogin consolidation Press 6/12
846 Cannabis Vulture's fowl "only in Ontario" chicken balls 6/12
847 #A Crown Reply Factum to Lederman decision 6/12
848 #B Crown Reply Factum to Lederman decision 6/13
849 Parker claims Pitt Ace 6/13
850 Abolitionist Party of Canada Policies 6/13
851 Pauper's serendipity has Crown by the balls 6/13
852 Crown moves to stay Lederman 6/13
853 Re: Abolitionist Party of Canada Policies 6/13
854 Stay of Lederman moot after Rogin 6/14
855 Censored from Medpot Groups? 6/14
856 #2 Cannabis Vulture's chicken balls "only in Ontario" 6/14
857 Is Kid Windsor another narc mole shyster? 6/15
858 Dupuis says Rosenberg erased cultivation too 6/15
859 Focus on the fight 6/15
860 Pearson's Plunge to End Marijuana Prohibition 6/16
861 Dupuis challenging cultivation pro se 6/16
862 Ed Pearson urges Dupuis Quash motion put off 6/17
863 Big Breakfast Show on the A-Channel 6/18
864 Ed Pearson tampered with Dupuis case 6/18
865 Moldaver said: No Exemptee supply; no Lederman stay 6/18
866 #2 Ed Pearson tampered with Dupuis case 6/19
867 #3 Ed Pearson tampered with Dupuis case 6/19
868 One last stab at delaying legal cannabis, Shannon Kari 6/19
869 There was no interference from Ed 6/19
870 Why is everyone.. a "narc, mole, shyster" etc? 6/19
871 Charron Hearing on Rogin Intervention 6/19
872 CMMA censoring some of TURMEL posts 6/20
873 Chicken Balls Emery draws "Dozens" in TO 6/20
874 #1 Pearson helps Crown stay Lederman decision 6/20
875 #2 Pearson helps Crown stay Lederman decision 6/20
876 Ed "Fumbler" Pearson helps stay Lederman some more 6/20
877 Hitzig's Factum opposing Lederman stay 6/21
878 Alan Young Affidavit opposing Lederman stay 6/21
879 #2 No interference from Fumbler Ed Pearson? 6/21
880 Fumbler Ed Pearson explains Lederman interference 6/21
881 Fumbler Ed Pearson! Stay away from Lederman hearing! 6/21
882 Cannabis as addictive as chocolate? 6/21
883 What do you think of 6/22
884 Rogin with Parker, Parker, Parker, Turmel appeals 6/24
885 Judge reserves on Lederman Stay 6/24
886 Dr. Edwin Pearson, Silver Light Mission of God Pastor 6/24
887 Justice Simmons orders Big Five Appeals together 6/25
888 Serendipity wins! Carthy denies stay of Lederman 6/25
889 TajProfessor: Unlucky 13? 6/28
890 Chortling does not cause irreparable harm 6/29
891 Young's Lederman booby-trap soon sprung 6/30
892 #2 Young's Lederman booby-trap soon sprung 6/30
893 #3 Young's Lederman booby-trap soon sprung 6/30

JULY 2003:
894 Crown says "No Jury for Life Gamble" 7/1
895 #4 Young Lederman booby-trap funded by Renda 7/1
896 DrGreenThumb on Lederman booby-trap 7/1
897 Avoiding the Lederman Booby-trap? 7/1
898 Why Pearson fouled up Dupuis? 7/3
899 7 days til Lederman non-compliance 7/3
900 Questions from layman on Lederman boobytrap 7/3
901 6 days til Lederman non-compliance 7/4
902 Government's "last last" chance at Lederman Stay? 7/4
904 Crown's "last last" motion for Lederman Stay? 7/4
905 Alan Young's book, Eye Magazine 7/5
906 5 days til Lederman non-compliance 7/5
907 Crown Factum: Chapnik set aside Pitt 7/5
908 4 days til Lederman non-compliance; Big Five Agenda 7/5
909 3 days til Ministry misses Court deadline 7/7
910 2 days til McLellan flouts court 7/8
911 Parliament Hill Acclamation of MMAR 7/8
912 Last day for Minister to deliver the dope 7/9
913 Ministry doles out dope to obey Lederman 7/9
914 Justice Simmons grants 4 motion volley 7/12
915 Epileptic wins lifetime right to marijuana, Nat Post 7/15
916 #A Justice Simmons grants 4 motions 7/16
917 #B Justice Simmons grants 4 motions 7/16
918 Factum for Charbonneau appeal 7/16
919 Factum for Aitken appeal 7/16
920 Backward presentation for Court on Big Five Day 7/16
921 Burstein has no idea what Turmel's talking about 7/17
922 "Angel of Death" Cripps-Prawak promoted 7/18
923 Crown Factum for Charbonneau Appeal 7/18
924 Crown Factum of Aitken appeal 7/18
925 Justice Labrosse won't reverse Gvt fix 7/18
926 Crown's one case to set aside Pitt decision 7/19
927 Vitamin B17 to fight cancer opposed by Gvt 7/19
928 Sheep-dip can't white-wash Narc Emery 7/20
929 #2 Sheep-dip can't white-wash Narc Emery 7/20
930 #3 Sheep-dip can't white-wash Narc Emery 7/20
931 #4 Sheep-dip can't white-wash Narc Emery 7/20
932 Dupuis Motion to Quash Cultivation Thursday 7/21
933 Quebec motion to kill prohibition Friday 7/22
934 #2 Vitamin B17 to fight cancer Jason Vale case 7/22
935 Motion to amend charge to plus 3Kg marijuana 7/23
936 New Crown Factum for Carthy-Lederman stay appeal Tuesday 7/23
937 Stones coming to Parker Medpot Appeals? 7/23
938 Dupuis waits for upcoming SCC ruling on Rosenberg! 7/24
939 Apricot Seed Vitamin B-17 Healer Vale jailed in US 7/24
940 Waiting for upcoming SCC ruling on Rosenberg! 7/25
941 Mea Maxima Culpa for Quebec Hearing Screw-up-a 7/25
942 Is Cancer Merely A Vitamin B-17 Deficiency Disease? 7/26
943 Wrong-Way Young sabotaged Pitt decision? 7/26
944 Crown Motion to intro new evidence of MER 7/26
945 Crown Affidavit to intro new MER medpot supply 7/26
946 Richard Lake alleged rat?7/27
947 Vitamin B17 for Boob-Toob Bob's Bad-Breath 7/27
948 Terry Parker's Pitt Protection Play 7/27
949 #2 Richard Lake alleged rat? 7/27
950 Heavenly herbs, seeds, and waters 7/28/
951 Big Five Appeals Bode Worst Case Scenario 7/29
952 Prohibition remains invalid, court says, maybe 7/31

AUGUST 2003
953 Court rejects appeal of Carthy Stay 8/2
954 #A Big Five Marijuana Appeals 8/4/2003
955 #B Big Five Marijuana Appeals 8/5
956 #C Big Five Marijuana Appeals (Windsor case) 8/5
957 #D Big Five Marijuana Appeals: Windsor Rogin 8/6
958 #E Big Five Marijuana Appeals: Charbonneau & Aitken 8/8
959 #F Big Five Marijuana Appeals: Question 1-3 8/9
960 #G Big Five Marijuana Appeals: Question 4 8/10
962 #H Big Five Marijuana Appeals: Question 5 8/11
963 Banning Marijuana, Apricot pits, Bananas??? 8/12
964 Index of Medpot Combat Reports 2000-01-02
965 Index of Medpot Combat Reports 2003
966 US gets Gvt Spin by Young, Elrod, Lake 8/19
967 Turmel v. Emery debate at Cannabian Day in TO 8/28

SEPTEMBER 2003
968 Medpot Marc Paquette's Fed Court Appeal 9/4
969 Emery ducks Cannabian Day Debate, Young too 9/4
970 Freedom, Marijuana, Libertarian Party Events 9/13
971 Need Hat-Trick candidates for Prov. Party 9/13
972 Turmel: #2 Alias lists don't work 9/13
973 BC declares Prohibition "unknown to law" 9/15
974 Instructions for Hat-Trick candidates 9/17
975 Election in Brant & First Debate 9/20
976 Casino drew poker lover into election, Brantford Expositor 9/22
977 Last Medpot and Election News 9/27

OCTOBER 2003
978 Super Loser fails 55th try 10/4
979 Super Loser contests 56th election in Ottawa mayoralty 10/4
980 Hitzig Group taking credit for Parker case 10/6
981 Judges who break the law 10/10
982 Court usurps Parliamentary Prerogative 10/10
983 In Memoriam: Ontario Marijuana; not so fast 10/12
984 Cannabis Culture: Black Tuesday for Canadian Cannaphiles 10/12
985 Jason Vale apricot pit B17 sentence Oct 24 10/12
986 Emery planning inteference at Supreme Court 10/13
987 Presentation to Special Committee on Drugs? 10/14
988 #2 Emery planning inteference at Supreme Court 10/14
989 John Conroy says Court ruling okay 10/15
990 Fw: Saving lives Terry Parker Jr. 10/16
991 Emery's supporter sucker for punishment 10/17
992 #1 Big Five Appeals Decisions: Hitzig 10/18
993 #2 Big Five Appeals Decisions: Hitzig 10/18
994 #3 Big Five Appeals Decisions: Hitzig 10/18
995 #4 Big Five Appeals Decisions: Hitzig 10/18
996 #5 Big Five Appeals Decisions: Hitzig 10/18
997 #6 Big Five Appeals Decisions: Hitzig 10/18
998 #7 Big Five Appeals Decisions: Hitzig 10/18
999 #8 Big Five Appeals: Pitt, Charbonneau, Aitken 10/18
1000 #9 Big Five Appeals: Rogin 10/18
1001 Boris to the rescue 10/18
1002 #10 Big Five Appeals: Spinning Synopsis 10/19
1003 2003 Ottawa Mayoral Candidate Email 10/20
1004 Molson-Labatt gang battle erupts over beer 10/25
1005 Split healthy prevention from ill relief 10/25
1006 Alan Young at Univ. of Toronto Monday Oct 27 10/25
1007 Doherty Goudge Simmons burn Don Appleby 10/27
1008 Paul Burstein's Judas Goat Day on TV? 10/27
1009 PEI accepts Hitzig rebirth of prohibition 10/28
1010 #2 2003 Ottawa Mayoral Candidate Email 10/28
1010 #2 2003 Ottawa Mayoral Candidate Email 10/28
1011 Nabbed by RCMP at House of Commons 10/29
1012 Doherty Goudge Simmons kill Don Appleby 10/30
1013 Motion to adjourn Possess to Traffic trial 10/30
1014 Frank: Hill hacks sleep through drug bust 10/30
1015 Paul Burstein's Big Sell-Out Day 10/30
1016 #3 Ottawa Mayor wins 1-candidate debates, maybe 10/31

NOVEMBER 2003
1017 Don Appleby's Health Canada Tribulations 11/1
1018 Don Appleby death making news 11/1
1019 Nigeria is 54th nation with LETS 11/2
1020 LETS Timedollars to fund environment saving 11/4
1021 Money, Interest and Prosperity 11/4
1022 Judges' K-Slabs misunderstood? 11/4
1023 "Life for Laughing Grass" Trial June 17 2004 11/4
1024 Fw: EDITOR Terry Parker Jr. 11/5
1025 canada.com Story 11/8
1026 Vale facing 20 years for Vitamin B17 11/8
1027 Parliament fails to enact new prohibition 11/8
1028 #4 Ottawa Mayor Candidate Press / Questions 11/8
1029 Epilepsy Canada drops 2400-4600 for "many" deaths 11/10
1030 Alan Young Spin by York U. Excalibur 11/10
1031 Rudimentary UNILETS accounting 11/10
1032 3 Blind Rats: Young/Emery/St-Maurice in BC 11/12
1033 #1 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript 11/12
1034 Re: Turmoil spam 11/13
1035 #2 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript 11/13
1036 #3 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript 11/14
1037 Montreal Seminar on Alternative Currencies 11/14
1038 #4 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript 11/14
1039 #5 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript 11/15
1040 #6 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript 11/16
1041 #7 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript 11/17
1042 Medpot Committee closes on ignorant note 11/17
1043 NOW Magazine: Health Canada Sniffs At Court Ruling 11/17
1044 #2 Montreal Seminar on Alternative Currencies 11/17
1045 "Proteus" by Morris West 11/18
1046 #8 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript 11/18
1047 Bronfmans' Montreal Jewish Community LETS 11/18
1048 "Help requested" is not the help needed 11/19
1049 #9 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript 11/19
1050 #10 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript 11/23
1051 #11 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript 11/23
1052 #11 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript 11/23
1053 #12 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript 11/24
1054 #13 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript 11/25
1055 #14 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript 11/26
1056 #15 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript 11/27
1057 Sabine had MPs looking at public money 11/27
1058 #16 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript 11/28
1059 #17 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript 11/29
1060 TAJPROFESSOR: Quick Pot Odds Questions & Board Threats Quiz 11/29
1061 Alan Young says "kill all the lawyers" 11/29
1062 US Medpot Spin on THE BATTLE FOR CANADA 11/29

JANUARY 2004
1063 #18 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript 12/1
1064 #19 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript 12/1
1065 Argentina Timecreditos in ISCA Video: L'argent 12/1
1066 #3 Montreal Seminar on Alternative Currencies 12/2
1067 #20 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript 12/2
1068 #2 Waiting for Lyin Ryan to put up 12/3
1069 #21 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript 12/3
1070 #22 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript 12/4
1071 #4 Montreal Seminar on Alternative Currencies 12/4
1072 #23 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript 12/5
1073 December 5 Big Day 12/5
1074 #24 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript 12/6
1075 Sand-bagged by Ed Pearson on appeal deadline 12/6
1076 #25 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript 12/8
1077 LETS *Lecture* UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA 12/8
1078 #26 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript 12/9
1079 #27 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript 12/11
1080 #28 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript 12/13
1081 McAllister's straw horse or real? 12/13
1082 #29 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript 12/13
1083 #30 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript 12/14
1084 #31 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript 12/15
1085 #A Translation of video: Argent, Money 12/15
1086 #B Translation of video: Argent, Money 12/15
1087 #C Translation of video: Argent, Money 12/15
1088 #32 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript 12/16
1089 #33 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript 12/17
1090 #34 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript 12/18
1091 #35 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript 12/19
1092 #36 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript End 12/20
1093 Alan Young's next loser move is contemptible 12/22
1094 #5 Montreal Seminar on Alternative Currencies 12/22
1095 Santa's Credit for Dennis The Menace 12/23
1096 Santa's Credit for Dennis The Menace JPG 12/25
1097 #1 Laughing Grass rulings by Supreme Court of Canada 1/2
1098 #2 Laughing Grass rulings by Supreme Court of Canada 1/3
1099 #3 Laughing Grass rulings by Supreme Court of Canada 1/3
1100 #4 Laughing Grass rulings by Supreme Court of Canada 1/3
1101 #5 Laughing Grass rulings by Supreme Court of Canada 1/3
1102 #6 Laughing Grass rulings by Supreme Court of Canada 1/3
1103 #7 Laughing Grass rulings by Supreme Court of Canada 1/3
1104 #8 Laughing Grass rulings by Supreme Court of Canada 1/3
1105 #9 Laughing Grass rulings by Supreme Court of Canada 1/3
1106 #10 Laughing Grass rulings by Supreme Court of Canada 1/3
1107 #11 Laughing Grass rulings by Supreme Court of Canada 1/3
1108 #12 Laughing Grass rulings by Supreme Court of Canada 1/3
1109 #13 Laughing Grass rulings by Supreme Court of Canada 1/3
1110 SCC Krieger Victory Cards and Hitzig Losers 1/10
1111 SCC Krieger Victory Cards and Hitzig Losers 1/10
1112 Spartacus at Babylon 1/14
1113 World Social Forum UNILETS resolution 1/18
1114 ISCA video "L'argent/Money" in St-Jerome Jan 24 1/20
1115 #2 World Social Forum UNILETS resolution 1/20
1116 Burstein's Hitzig Supreme Court Issue 1/24
1117 Bowser Beagle Burstein's Boner at Supreme Court 1/25
1118 #2 Bowser Beagle Burstein's Boner at Supreme Court 1/28
1119 Krieger Win goes unclaimed 1/29
1120 #2 Krieger Win goes unclaimed 1/30
-
FEBRUARY 2004
1121 Whose side is Krieger on? 2/1
1122 Remembering winning extensions for exemptees? 2/1
1123 Toronto Hemp Company of Morons or Moles 2/1
1124 Medpot memberships hacked 2/1
1125 Emailled signatures to register political party 2/2
1126 New Most Elections Contested & Most Lost 2/2
1127 #2 Toronto Hemp Company of Morons or Moles 2/2
1128 JamesTaris & TomKennedy @ Kitchener LETS nesday 2/3
1129 US Indians on LETS wampum currency 2/3
1130 UK Guardian on safety of cannabis 2/3
1131 Neo-Barter in Latin America (English/Spanish/French) 2/3
1132 Will Crown deflate Burstein's No-Force Boner day? 2/3
1133 Parker-Turmel-Paquette appeal wins 4000 stays 2/7
1134 Paquette Fed Appeal in Supreme Court cards? 2/8
1135 Krieger SCC Victory with Acton Ruling 2/8
1136 JamesTaris & TomKennedy @ Kitchener Report 2/9
1137 Medpot growers tempted by Krieger decision?
1138 20040211 (U.K.) LETS Mail / Couriel SEL 2/11
1139 Marie Krieger explains why not vacate stay 2/11
1140 Taris around the world Kitchener LETS Report 2/12
1141 Green Tide Prohibitionist Summit speech? 2/12
1142 20040212 (U.S.) LETS Mail / Couriel SEL 2/12
1143 Your Body's Many Cries for Water 2/12
1144 #2 Your Body's Many Cries for Water 2/14
1145 Argentina Grain IOUs & Heloisa Primavera article 2/15
1146 #2 Argentina Grain IOUs & Heloisa Primavery article 2/15
1147 CBC Mansbridge says beer as good as water 2/16
1148 20040222 (OZ-NZ) LETS Mailbag / Couriel SEL 2/22
1149 20040222 LETS Mailbag / Couriel SEL 2/22
1150 Cannabis Quebec Magazine prints Turmel beef 2/24
1151 Medpot Marc claims Appleby-Neron Sect.302 too 2/24
1152 20040224 LETS Mailbag / Couriel SEL 2/24
1153 Boris St-Maurice explains why no leader election 2/25
1154 Turmel Election Team to Challenge Pot Prohibition 2/25
1155 20040225 LETS Mailbag / Couriel SEL 2/26
1156 Many busted because of Gutless Grant Krieger? 2/26
1157 Don't defend Gutless Grant Krieger 2/28
-
MARCH 2004
1158 "Money" video in English showing in TO Saturday 3/11
1159 Casino Turmel cited in Tax Court of Canada 3/13
1160 Crown Memo soft on Beagle Burstein's Boner 3/19
1161 Beagle Burstein's Reply to Hitzig Crown Memo 3/19

APRIL 2004
1162 April 1 Demand  4/1
1163 Online Local Employment-Trading Systems??? 4/8
1164 Judges' Epileptic Genocide crosses 1 kilo-mort 4/9
1165 Krieger family caught with pot 4/9
1166 James Taris surviving 2 days with Turmel 4/10
1167 "Money" video & LETS Mort-Gage game Monday 4/10
1168 Krieger fundraising premature waste 4/11
1169 Still no defence for Krieger inaction 4/11
1170 Parker & Turmel OCA Orders for Lederman Appeal 4/13
1171 Spontaneous LETS timecurrency combustion 4/25
1172 Crown calls Parker & Turmel Orders a draw!! 4/27
1173 Guinness Record 57th Hamilton East Byelection4/29
1174 Expositor: Brantford Million Marijuana March 4/29
1175 Forms to appeal Aug2001-Oct2003 marijuana charges 4/29

MAY 2004
1176 Marijuana protest fizzles as cops watch, Expositor 5/4
1177 Crown won't admit law died on Orders 5/5
1178 Learn today if Supreme Court is in on Hitzig fix 5/6
1179 Beagle Burstein's bowzer bites the dust 5/7
1180 Sheila Copps should found her own party! 5/7
1181 "The Corporation" blames profit, not survival, motive 5/10
1182 Marijuana not for kids or drivers, Expositor reader 5/10
1183 Marijuana Health Mythology by Dale Gieringer, Ph.D. 5/10
1184 Marijuana and driving, Ottawa Citizen 5/10
1185 Marijuana's Effects on Actual Driving Performance 5/10
1186 Who is John "The Engineer" Galt? Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged 5/11
1187 Parker's "Marijuana Prohibition Gone" Order! 5/11
1188 Laughing Grass is for kids and drivers too5/12
1189 Pot Re-Criminalization bill going up in smoke? 5/12
1190 First Krieger Cultivation Quash in Ontario 5/15
1192 June 9 D-Day for marijuana prohibition in Canada 5/16
1193 Pot is safe for kids and drivers, Expositor letter 5/16
1194 Alison Myrden in MedPot.net family! Not 5/17
1195 New Zealand LETS cuts foreign subscribers 5/17
1196 Rosenberg "Invalidate Marijuana Prohibition" Order 5/18
1197 Pot is safe for kids and drivers, Expositor letter 5/18
1198 Alison Myrden helped bring back prohibition 5/18
1199 Going to C.O.M.E.R. Conference May 29 in Toronto 5/19
1200 TAJPROFESSOR: Suing the Ontario Gaming Commission Poker Rules 5/20
1201 TAJPROFESSOR: #2 Suing the Ontario Gaming Commission Poker Rules 5/20
1202 Parker's "Abolish Marijuana Prohibition" Order ready! 5/20
1203 Japan has 400 LETS timecurrencies! Prove it. 5/20
1204 TURMEL's One-Candidate Political Party in Canada? 5/23
1205 Federal Election 36 day campaign is on 5/25
1206 Brant Election Opponents and COMER Saturday 5/25
1207 First Turmel Possess to Traffick Quash in Ontario 5/26
1208 Peru's Parallel Currency may be LETS? 5/30
1209 Krieger gets dying Alberta man convicted for pot 5/30
1210 Presentation canceled by COMER 5/30
1211 Krieger cowardice leaves bust patients without supply 5/30
1212 First LETS in Cameroon soon? 5/31
1213 Is "Pay it Forward" Movie LETS? 5/31

JUNE 2004
1214 Court seeks adjournment of Hill Bust Trial 6/1
1215 Marc Gauvin's energy concerns 6/1
1216 Drunk Driver Committee Carps on Pot in Expositor 6/2
1217 Johnny Dupuis acquitted of possession to traffic 6/3
1218 Signing up for Brant riding tomorrow 6/3
1219 Bilderbergers meet again 6/7
1220 Guinness Record 58th election contest in Brant 6/7
1221 Fill the Hill Report 6/7
1222 Political junkie enters race, Expositor 6/8
1224 Krieger Card forces Crown to drop all TO charges 6/9
1225 #2 Krieger Card forces Crown to drop all TO 6/10
1226 #2 "Pay it Forward" Movie is LETS!!! 6/10
1227 Brant Women's All-Candidates debate 6/10
1228 Trio's pot case nixed, TO Sun 6/10
1229 Crown withdrew TO Trio pot charges prematurely 6/12
1230 Oshawa Kid doing TO Trio quash Wednesday! 6/12
1231 Pot laws: Only two possible choices, TO Sun WRONG 6/13
1232 Oshawa Kid Marko sends an invite 6/13
1233 Cannabis Vulture Narc Emery's June 17 show-stealer 6/13
1234 Ontario Registered Nurses Association debate 6/14
1235 Brantford Bus Line Bans candidates from bus stop 6/14
1236 #2 Brantford Bus Line Bans candidates from bus stop 6/15
1237 On CBC-Radio "Here and now" Wed Jun 16 4:10pm 6/15
1238 Oshawa Kid should tape record historic case 6/15
1239 Rogers Debate moderator bans party affiliation 6/15
1240 Guinness Book can't accept 58th election record 6/15
1241 Ed Martin marijuana charge withdrawn 6/16
1242 Protester calls P.M. "bum like your father" 6/16
1243 Oshawa Kid's quash motion delayed  6/17
1244 Sandy K. fifth marijuana charged withdrawn! 6/17
1245 Media ignore calling PM "bum like your father" 6/18
1246 Moderator uses armed muscle to ban buttons at debate 6/18
1247 Brantford Chamber of Commerce Survey  6/18
1248 Rogers Hired Guns police Brant TV Debate 6/18
1249 58 is a charm, Ottawa Citizen Glen McGregor 6/18
1250 Serendipitous Screw-up on Hill Bust motion 6/19
1251 Greens are Canada's best bet6/20
1252 Throw your $7 vote to the Greens 6/21
1253 Pot charge dropped after Hitzig-Prohibition-Rebirth 6/22
1254 LETS on the BBC Radio in UK 6/22
1255 Brantford Bus policy barring political candidates? 6/22
1256 Old medpot.net video & audio files still archived 6/22
1257 New motion to dismiss all pending pot charges 6/22
1258 Harris accosted about LETS and marijuana, Expositor 6/23
1259 Brantford Bus policy barring political candidates? 6/23
1260 Greens are best $7 bet for LETS and Marijuana 6/23
1261 Sgt. Carrier expels candidate from courthouse lobby 6/23
1262 First "Fortunate Four Thousand" Stay asking to dismiss 6/23
1263 CanWest falsifies TO Trio story 2 weeks late 6/23
1264 Sgt. Carrier expelled candidate for disruption 6/24
1265 First "Fortunate Four Thousand" Stay filed to dismiss 6/24
1266 #2 Marc Gauvin's energy concerns 6/24
1267 Krieger "Pot crusader" charged after weed sent by mail 6/24
1268 Sandy quashed Oshawa pot charge, not Marko 6/24
1269 Low-tech Expositor editors duck high-tech interview 6/25
1270 Play goes to pot, CBC 6/25
1271 Charged with "Solicit person in vehicle on the roadway" 6/26
1272 Expositor's Distortionist Editorial Board 6/27
1273 Charge of saying "Marijuana" to 7-year-old? 6/29
1274 Interest-free banking (Sharon van Ede) 6/29
1275 Shocking document 6/29
1276 Australian Review of James Taris presentation 6/29
1277 Betting a billion to one on Interest-free? 6/29
1278 Fuhrer Philp needs to apologize 6/29
1279 #2 Play goes to pot, CBC 6/29
1280 Decorated soldier tires of pot fight 6/29
1281 Biggest Interest-free currencies conference in NY 6/30
1282 Judge says stay for "Fortunate 4000" good enough 6/30

JULY 2004
1283 Following your team to the Superbowl of Pot 7/2
1284 Tim Philp's response: 7/4
1285 Germany local money 7/4
1286 Gvt. Minister Responds on Poker Rules complaint 7/5
1287 Wording for Turmel Lederman appeal Order 7/5
1288 Farenheit 911 Painful Deceptions 7/9
1289 Switzerland for LETS Social Credits 7/10
1290 Gauvin case cited in Supreme Court of Canada 7/13
1291 Lawyer derails Davies' stay dismissal 7/13
1292 Google censors Farenheit 9/11 criticisms?? 7/15
1293 Busted Nielsen family want s.15 equal Kramer treatment 7/15
1294 Timeline for Marijuana Prohibitions 7/15
1295 Nielsen quash case put off to next week! 7/16
1296 The most powerful corporation in Amerika 7/16
1297 Google censors USENET F-911 criticisms 3 times 7/17
1298 Latest on Argentinian Creditos? 7/17
1299 Crown Memorandum in Original Parker Appeal! 7/17
1300 #2 Timeline for Marijuana Prohibitions 7/17
1301 #3 Timeline for Marijuana Prohibitions 7/18
1302 #2 The most powerful corporation in Amerika 7/19
1304 Nielsen Written Representations to Judge Edwards 7/19
1305 #B Nielsen Written Representations to Judge Edwards 7/19
1306 #2 Yacub likes Death Gamble 7/20
1307 Liberal report on Martin picketed by Turmel 7/20
1308 "No-Buttons" Complaint about Rogers to CRTC 7/21
1309 David Astle's Babylonian Woe 7/21
1310 The Vitamin B17 Laurel Cherry tree 7/21
1311 Judge Edwards challenges Crown to prove law alive 7/22
1312 Will Judge Edwards accept Court-un-repealed law? 7/22
1313 David Astle's Babylonian Woe Complete 7/22
1314 Stavert backs Lederman Appeal Order wording 7/23
1315 More cases found for medpot timeline 7/23
1316 CDSA Sec 24 - Claim for return of seized pot 7/23
1317 Brant election solicitation charge on Dec.14 7/23
1319 Health Canada reinstates fatal cancer on MMAR 7/23
1320 TO Trio protest Crown delay on pot return 7/29
1321 Crown nixes Stavert wording of "resurrection" order 7/29
1322 Crown challenges "Resurrection Order" wording 7/31
1323 Judges fool 1,500 epileptics to death in 1 year 7/31

AUGUST 2004
1324 TO Trio's motion to Sheppard for pot back 8/4
1325 Seeking Resurrection Order for Prohibition 8/5
1326 TO Trio's pot return motion to Sheppard on Aug 16 8/5
1327 Second TO Trio Protest in the rain 8/5
1329 Cannabis Vulture Prince of Rot Narc Emery censors REPEAL 8/6
1330 Aug 11 protest being organised in Toronto 8/8
1331 "Anti-begging law hurts needy," and democracy 8/8
1332 CRTC on Rogers-TV "Party Affiliation Buttons" Complaint 8/12
1333 Crown's submission on Prohibition Resurrection Order8/12
1334 Smiths Falls is another Judas Goat cover case 8/12
1335 Third TO Trio Protest to Thieving Crown 8/12
1336 We want United States Notes 8/13
1337 Complementary Currencies in Europe conference 8/13
1338 Demurrage isn't optimal money systems engineering 8/13
1339 Fahrenheit 911; The Other Half of the Story 8/13
1340 Prohibition Resurrection Order worded wrong 8/13
1341 Einstein on monopoly capitalism 8/15
1342 Resurrection Order Appointment with Doherty J. 8/15
1343 #2 Demurrage isn't optimal money systems engineering 8/15
1344 TO Trio Crown cedes cash & grow-op, not pot 8/16
1345 TO Trio claim pot back too on Wednesday 8/17
1346 Chance to get TO Trio case law to Sheppard thru Champagne 8/17
1347 Cannabis Vulture Prince of Rot Narc Emery says no REPEAL 8/17
1348 Cannabis may block growth of brain cancer 8/17
1349 #3 Demurrage isn't optimal money systems engineering 8/17
1350 CITY-TV covers Sheppard ordering immediate return of grow-op 8/18
1351 Sheppard returns grow-op, reserves on pot to Oct 19 8/18
1352 Why Young won't move to quash 8/18
1353 Last demand for Resurrection Order 8/19
1354 Einstein, Turmel and Woe 8/19
1355 Bruce Ryan on City T.V. 8/19
1356 Marc Emery's a hero to the narcs 8/19
1357 JoJo says pot is still illegal? Muirhead says no 8/19
1358 Prince of Rot gets 90-day sheep-dip in jail! 8/19
1359 Hitzig beats Parker-Krieger-Turmel in Ethier loss? 8/21
1360 Crown consents to their version of resurrection order 8/24
1361 LETS as applicable to health care services 8/25
1362 Both new SCC judges heard Turmel cases below 8/25
1363 Resurrection Order on Doherty J.'s desk 8/26
1364 No delay for Doherty J.A.'s Resurrection Order 8/27

SEPTEMBER 2004
1365 File - mptopics.txt MedPot@yahoogroups.com 9/1
1366 Some delay for Doherty J.A.'s Resurrection Order 9/3
1367 Medpot Yahoogroup members hacked 9/3
1368 Accordion and Poetry in Mohawk Park 9/3
1369 Terry Parker in Brantford for Nielsen's Edwards Decision 9/3
1370 #2 Accordion and Poetry in Mohawk Park 9/4
1371 #2 Medpot Yahoogroup members hacked 9/5
1372 Will Jean Cooper plead guilty like Marc "The Narc" Emery? 9/5
1373 #1 Nielsen No-Resurrection Motion Transcripts 9/5
1374 #2 Nielsen No-Resurrection Motion Transcripts 9/5
1375 #3 Nielsen No-Resurrection Motion Transcripts 9/5
1376 No Factum for Nielsens by Reverend Ed Pearson 9/9
1377 Ed Martin's Golden Ganja Gram Grab 9/9
1378 Focus prohibition blame on right bad guys 9/9
1379 Nielsen case needed no help from Ed Pearson 9/9
1380 #2 Ed Martin's Golden Ganja Gram Grab 9/9
1381 Marc "Narc" Emery lies about Guilty Plea 9/10
1382 #2 Marc "Narc" Emery lies about Guilty Plea 9/10
1383 #3 Marc "Narc" Emery lies about Guilty Plea 9/10
1384 Pearson interferes in Nielsen case 9/10
1385 Pearson Booby-traps Nielsen motion 9/10
1386 Pearson's Nielsen booby-trap still ditchable 9/10
1387 More Marc "The Narc" Emery Sheep-Dipping 9/10
1388 Pearson's potential booby-trap 9/11
1389 Pearson's meddling coming to an end 9/11
1390 Nielsens seek instant taped decision 9/13
1391 Servant of Crown won't serve Citizen of Crown? 9/13
1392 Edward Decision Could End Prohibition Officially 9/13
1393 Judge Edward "follows orders" in Nielsen persecution 9/16
1394 Justice Doherty won't sign Resurrection Order 9/17
1395 Time Banks Congress 2004 in Toronto 9/17
1396 Alan Young's hypocrisy in two Pitt letters 9/18
1397 Marc The Narc Emery's message on Guilty Plea 9/19
1398 Emery had no defence prepared for "not guilty" plea 9/20
1399 Stephen Zarlenga's main thrust is off-target 9/20
1400 Emery had no defence for "not guilty" plea 9/21
1401 CannabisNews to censor Virgil's Turmel stories 9/21
1402 Tom Greco's Zarlenga Review 9/21
1403 Judge Edward "Heil Resurrection" transcript 9/22
1404 #2 Time Banks Congress 2004 in Toronto 9/22
1405 Windsor Kid McAllister to argue POLCOA at the top? 9/23
1406 Judas Kid Pressman aids Gvt spin tonight 9/26
1407 LETS cooperate on Zarlenga? 9/26
1408 Jailed Klutz "Kamikaze with no bomb" Emery addresses crowd 9/26
1409 #2 Alan Young's hypocrisy in two Pitt letters 9/26
1410 Want Windsor Kid McAllister to argue POLCOA? 9/26
1411 Judas Kid Pressman on fixed CPAC Goldhawk show 9/26
1412 Emery's "I plead Guilty" Transcript ordered 9/27
1413 #3 Time Banks Congress 2004 in Toronto 9/27
1414 Nielsens ask Judge Edward Reconsider Quash Oct 4 9/29

OCTOBER 2004
1415 File - mptopics.txt MedPot@yahoogroups.com 10/1
1416 Lucy wants debate dumbed down to her level 10/2
1417 20:1 odds against Edward prohibition repeal Monday? 10/2
1418 Lyin Bill Ryan can't put up 10/2
1419 Judge kills Quadriplegic for pot offence 10/2
1420 Another Alan Young mole pleads guilty: Dianne Bruce 10/2
1421 Hitzig Order mentions no resurrection 10/3
1422 Marc "Narc" Emery won't explain Guilty plea 10/3
1423 Judge Edward adjourns Nielsen Quash Reconsideration 10/5
1424 Supreme Court Applications Ready and Printed 10/6
1425 Parliament Hill bust on CBC-FRENCH-TV May 14 2003 10/8
1426 Resurrection & "We'll Remember" SCC Appeals filed 10/8
1427 Cannabis Quebec #13 Fill the Hill article 10/8
1428 Banned from ccc without a vote 10/8
1429 Child Deaths Stats Refocus Things 10/9
1430 More Medpot timeline cases and information 10/10
1431 Winnipeg Alan Young supporter pleads guilty 10/10
1432 Resurrection Duck to Sheppard's attention for Oct 19 10/11
1433 John The Engineer's update for new MPs 10/11
1434 TimeBanksUK political correctness saves Lucy's ego 10/11
1435 Supreme Court "Anti-Hitzig-Resurrection" Application 10/12
1436 Supreme Court "All-Prohibitions-Invalid" Application 10/12
1437 Cannabis Vulture's "I plead Guilty" Transcript ready 10/14
1438 TO Trio Resurrection Duck papers for Sheppard tomorrow 10/14
1439 TimeBanksUK voting on banning "TimeBanks Engineer" 10/14
1440 Child Deaths Stats Refocus Things 10/16
1441 KIEF LEAF NEWS invites MedPot owner/group members 10/16
1442 Canadian Cannabis Coalition without Turmel 10/16
1443 No defence allowed in TimeBanksUK Ban vote 10/17
1444 Media get wild and wolly Sheppard hearing 10/19
1445 Judge Sheppard rules no pot return to TO TRIO 10/20
1446 S.24 Application for pot return to Sheppard Monday 10/21
1447 Parliament Hill House of Commons bust trial 10/23
1448 Turmel v. Hitzig at Supreme Court #30570 10/24
1449 1st "Krieger s.7 cultivation" quash in Ontario Thursday 10/24
1450 CITY-TV, Star,cover Sheppard hassles cops 10/25
1451 David Astle's Babylonian Woe BOOK on sale in TO? 10/26
1452 Turmel v. All Sections at Supreme Court #30571 10/26
1453 John 'The Engineer' Turmel ban from TimeBanksUK 10/26
1454 Judge Sheppard ducks s.24 jurisdiction for pot return 10/26
1455 Always stand mute; never plead "not guilty" 10/27
1456 Emery to show Jean Cooper how to plead guilty? 10/27
1457 1st "Krieger s.7 cultivation" quash in Hearst tomorrow 10/27
1458 Sickle Cell genocide going on too 10/28
1459 Narc Emery off-target on Quadriplegic killing for pot 10/28
1460 Prod CRTC Rogers "Party Buttons" and Bus Complaints 10/28
1461 TO Trio get back grop-op equipment 10/29
1462 Minor Supreme Court Glitches in Medpot appeals 10/29
1463 Creaky crate cancels Cochrane Cultivation Clash 10/30
1464 Sudbury Star good and bad 10/31
1465 Another big marijuana issue by Supreme Court? 10/31
1466 More sites for David Astle's Babylonian Woe 10/31
1467 Oct 31 marijuana case law timeline upgrade 10/31
1468  File - timeline.txt  MedPot@yahoogroups.com 11/1
1469  File - mptopics.txt  MedPot@yahoogroups.com 11/1

NOVEMBER 2004
1470 Bank of Canada Big Lie says more interest rate hikes 11/1
1471 Ben Franklin, Prof. Flaherty, on Death gamble 11/1
1472 New links for David Astle's Babylonian Woe 11/1
1473 Section 136 audiotaping courts now a must 11/1
1474 Noreen's friend charged with possession offences 11/4
1475 Marco, Emery and Cooper all guilties? 11/4
1476 Another big marijuana issue by Supreme Court? 11/4
1477 #2 Minor Supreme Court Glitches in Medpot appeals 11/4
1478 Marc Emery's "plead guilty" transcript 11/4
1479 #2 Marc Emery's "plead guilty" transcript 11/4
1480 #2 Ben Franklin, Prof. Flaherty, on Death gamble 11/5
1481 TBUK censorship continues despite "no" vote 11/5
1482 Dennis The Menace on Democracy v. Republic 11/5
1483 Canadian First Nations tripped up but good 11/5
1484 Sickle Cell genocide challenge too? 11/5
1485 John Turmel on CKLN 2pm 11/5
1486 Cooper compared to Marc Emery? 11/5
1487 CKLN on Avi Lewis / Naomi Klein Judas Goats 11/5
1488 Apology, not Libby Davies' Amnesty 11/5
1489 Castlef beating up Bill Ryan on Social Credit 11/7
1490 New Quash All Marijuana Charges Forms now online 11/8
1491 Crown misses SCC Memo deadline 11/8
1492 Brantford Inventors founding LETS Timebank Wednesday 11/8
1493 Interest and Inflation 11/9
1494 Crown didn't miss SCC Memo deadline 11/9
1495 Nov 10 Timeline additions 11/10
1496 Last glitch in the forms fixed 11/11
1497 Using http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/mpforms.htm FORMS 11/11
1498 DrGreenThumb indicts Alan Young Good 11/12
1499 Poker chips bank is congruent metaphor? model? 11/13
1500 Poker Chips bank perfect banking metaphor 11/16
1501 Updated forms with Affidavit of Service 11/16
1502 Cannabis Class Action Suit by growers waste of time 11/18
1503 Dec 3 Krieger Cultivation Quash in Cochrane 11/19
1504 Objection to "All Sections" Order with no consent 11/19
1505 Emery supporter Buors guilty plead gets 6 months! 11/19
1506 Second Krieger Quash filed in Elliot Lake or Dec. 3 11/19
1507 Emery showed Jean Cooper how to plead guilty! 11/19
1508 Pot-Growing Grandma grounded, Chilliwack Progress 11/21
1509 Hamilton Hum-drum Heard-it-before Marijuana Summit 11/21
1510 Third Krieger Quash filed in Cochrane for Dec. 3 11/22
1511 Canadian AIDS Society says Hitzig Resurrection Over 11/23
1512 Timeline now adds AIDS Society compliance demand! 11/26
1513 Turmel back on CKLN today at 2pm 11/26
1514 Nielsens give judge AIDS Society card 11/27
1515 S.7(1) declared no force & effect; Crown Memo Para.57 11/27
1516 From Alan Young - True or False? False. 11/27
1517 Millennium Declaration Resolution C6 11/27
1518 Personal LETS accounts 11/27
1520 Uppity clerk tries to stall Cochrane Quash motion 11/29
1521 Talking too fast loses the slow  11/29
1522 From Ed Pearson - True or False? False. 11/29
1523 Alan Young's lies beaten up some more 11/29
1524 Marc "Confess & Plead Guilty" Emery to traffic again! 11/30
1525  File - timeline.txt  MedPot@yahoogroups.com 12/1
1526  File - mptopics.txt  MedPot@yahoogroups.com 12/1

DECEMBER 2004
1527 Judge nixes Supreme Court of Canada in Brantford 12/1
1528 First Krieger quash in B.C. on Dec 9 12/3
1529 Nielsens' Jan 14 Superior Court motion for Prohibition 12/3
1530 Sun editorialists dunce up debate 12/3
1531 Steve Peacock abused by presumptious cop 12/3
1532 Marc "I confess I'm guilty" Emery's delusions of grandeur 12/3
1533 Second try to stall Cochrane Duo Quash motions 12/4
1534 Noreen plays Krieger Ace in BC court Dec 9 12/4
1535 Justice Sopinka on POLCOA 12/4
1536 Richard Johnson in Elliot Lake on Dec. 7 12/4
1537 Johnson Crown's serendipitous response 12/5
1538 Young's stab-in-the-back was appealed 12/7
1539 Johnsons surprised by off-the-record pre-trial 12/7
1540 Deluxe Maxi-kits v. Mini-kits to quash and prohibit 12/8
1541 Words of the Chief Justice of Canada ignored 12/8
1542 BC Judge Chen's Masse case nixes Hitzig! 12/9
1543  Re: [MedPot-discuss] A bit of press 12/9
1544 Why no one knows about Krieger repealing S.7 12/9
1545 Crown sidelines Noreen 1/3 year 12/10
1546 Nielsens' trial date after Jan 14 Prohibition Motion 12/10
1547 First Ontario Inmate Get-Out-Of-Jail Appeal Monday 12/10
1548 How Crown, Media, Krieger hid S.7 repeal! 12/11
1549 Personal LETS account notebooks 12/12
1550 Johnson trees Crown in Elliot Lake Krieger Quash 12/12
1551 Judge Simmons at Mike South Out-Of-Jail hearing 12/13
1552 Mike South's non-repentant medpot use 12/14
1553 Crown's Supreme Court Turmel v. Hitzig Memorandum 12/14
1554 Long-winded Timedollar questions 12/14
1555 Dakine Kamikaze Squadron in action Thursday 12/14
1556 Crown's Supreme Court "All Sections" Memorandum 12/14
1557 Prohibition law "too muddled" or "too dead?" 12/14
1558 Oshawa Kid playing Pearson Deuces tomorrow 12/14
1559  Re: TAJPROFESSOR: Precise bet calling most important poker skill 12/15
1560 Instructions to Mike South's lawyer 12/16
1561 Johnny Dupuis WINS stay of procedures! 12/16
1562 Oshawa Kid loses with Pearson Deuces 12/16
1563 Noreen's day in B.C. court 12/17
1564 Marijuana Timeline updates for December 17 12/17
1565 Last instructions to Mike South lawyer 12/17
1566 #2A Prohibition law "too muddled" or "too dead?" 12/17
1567 #2B Prohibition law "too muddled" or "too dead?" 12/17
1568 #2C Prohibition law "too muddled" or "too dead?" 12/17
1569 "Get out of Jail" AND "Get the Frankel Gang" 12/18
1570 Mike South asks court to cite Crown for contempt 12/19
1571 Alison Myrden's contributions to gvt spin 12/19
1572 S. David Frankel, Q.C.'s (Queen's Counsel) signature 12/19
1573 Krieger Media Misrepresentation now Appendices 12/20
1574 Mike South Application for Contempt Citation 12/20
1575 NCF Newsgroups miss some posts 12/21
1576 Mike South out; Xmas liberation stymied 12/21
1577 Who's next to bust out like Mike South? 12/22
1578 Surprise strike while the iron is hot 12/24
1579 Frankel Gang get very non-merry Christmas 12/24
1580 Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin is lynch-pin 12/26
1581 Noreen proves Krieger rules 12/26
1582 Pay-back for Presstitutes who covered up Krieger 12/26
1583 Abolitionists decry Frankel Gang to Chief Justice McLachlin 12/28
1584 Frankel Gang should be cited for contempt 12/29
1585 #2 Long-winded timedollar LETS bank questions 12/29
1586 Call from Supreme Court of Canada 12/30
1587 Fax from Supreme Court of Canada 12/31
1588 Can't follow Supreme Court Suggestion 12/31
1589 File - mptopics.txt  MedPot@yahoogroups.com 1/1
1590 File - timeline.txt  MedPot@yahoogroups.com 1/1

JANUARY 2005
1591 Global-TV New Year Marijuana Scene Update 1/1
1592 Shaking the Supreme Court of Canada tree 1/2
1593 Exchanges between Time Banks of goods too 1/2
1594 Pearson's Problems Prolong Pain 1/3
1595 Hearst Dynamic Duo in Cochrane Court Friday 1/3
1596 Frankel Gang makes another killing 1/4
1597 First Krieger Quash in North Bay 1/5
1598 Crown response to Hitzig resurrection stay 1/5
1599 Quash Kit Forms changes official for 2005 1/5
1600 Help First Krieger Quash in Manitoba? 1/5
1601 Crown bluffs out North Bay Challenge 1/6
1602 Tarzan swings to freedom on Krieger's vine? 1/6
1603 Keystone Krowns disobey Order for Nielsen Factum 1/7
1604 Manitoba Lawyer has concerns 1/7
1605 Manitoba Lawyer gets it right 1/7
1606 Contempt motion filed after Crown disobeys Order 1/8
1607 krIEger is most important case in Canada 1/8
1608 nIElsEn is most documented case in Canada 1/10
1609 Last day for Crown to duck Factum contempt 1/10
1610 Crown has no factum for Elliot Lake Court 1/11
1611 Crown files midnight Johnson factum 1/11
1612 Reserved decision in Nielsen Quash Motion to Jan 18 1/11
1614 Johnson Quash hearing report 1/12
1615 Forgetful engineer 1/13
1616 Nielsens attack on Contempt and Krieger too 1/13
1617 #2 Johnson Quash hearing report 1/13
1618 Why no charge from Manitoba Kid 1/13
1619 #2 Why no charge from Manitoba Kid 1/13
1620 #3 Why no charge from Manitoba Kid 1/13
1621 Johnsons need publicity too now 1/15
1622 New medpot-preview@yahoogroups.com channel 1/15
1623 World Social Forum 2005 UNILETS resolution? 1/17
1624 Argentina's Economic Rally Defies Forecasts, NY Times 1/17
1625 Judge Festeryga dismisses Nielsen's Edward appeal 1/17
1626 Noreen's Amendments to Quash Kits 1/17
1627  TURMEL:, Re:, Martyr, Emery, Plead, Guilty, To, Marijuana 1/17
1628 World Social Time Credits for tsunami repair 1/17
1629 Parker-Krieger Quashes North Bay charges??? 1/19
1630 Second Krieger Challenge in BC 1/19
1631 World Social Credits Engineer on the job 1/19
1632 No Parker-Krieger Quashes of North Bay charges??? 1/20
1633 LETS Complementary or Primary Currencies? 1/20
1634 Tarzan Ethier's North Bay 5(2) charge same as mine 1/21
1635 Johnson S.7 Quash delayed for Valin opinion to Feb 1 1/21
1636 Chuck & Noreen in BC court 1/22
1637 Edward Greenspan on medpot law, Lorne White 1/22
1638 Video looking for World Social Forum venue 1/22
1639 "A view from space" except for... 1/23
1640 First Krieger Get-out-of-jail in Quebec! 1/23
1641 Gravel's Krieger Get-out-of-jail Thursday in Quebec 1/25
1642 1st Quebec Krieger "Get out of Jail" fax to media 1/25
1643 Gravel Krieger Challenge on CHOT-TVA Mailloux show? 1/26
1644 CHOT-TVA Gilles Mailloux breaks "S.7 is dead" story!! 1/26
1645 Supreme Court Clerk moves to dismiss Hitzig appeal 1/28
1646 Le Droit publishes Gravel Get out of Jail case 1/28
1647 Mike Ethier's Krieger Quash S.5(2) in Sturgeon Falls 1/29
1648 Ditzy prison guard's bent spin on Krieger 1/29
1649 Johnson S.7 Quash case makes Elliot Lake Standard 1/29
1650 Gravel Krieger Release hearing 1/29
1651 Surprise Hill Bust motion Wednesday 1/29
1652 Toronto screening of Turmel video on Tuesday 1/30
1653 Virgil adds pressure to the Krieger cooker 1/30
1654 Hitzig Stay triggered Wednesday, or max resistance 1/30

FEBRUARY 2005
1655 Armstrong's Krieger Challenge in Woodstock today 2/1
1658 "Triple-Pimp Turmel" in Canada's Criminal Code 2/2
1659 Hitzig Stay triggered Wednesday, or min resistance 2/2
1660 Gravel hearing draws huge French media scrum 2/3
1661 Judge Serre dismisses Johnson Krieger Quash 2/3
1662 Gravel needs one last 8-line affidavit says Plouffe J. 2/3
1663 Le Droit spin on Gravel Case 2/4
1664 SCC time extension for Hitzig & Turmel appeals 2/5
1665 Mike South may choose jail? 2/6
1666 How is Armstrong's Krieger Challenge in Woodstock? 2/7
1667 Davos 2; World Social Forum 0 2/7
1668 Hitzig Stay of Execution? 2/7
1669 3-Way conference calling for 4 or more 2/8
1670 Resurrection spin from Cannabis Culture 2/8
1671 Sen. Louis T. McFadden honored in verse 2/8
1672 #2 Davos 2; World Social Forum 0 2/8
1673 Mike South misses hearing deadline to avoid Don jail 2/10
1674 Prodding SCC on Hitzig Stay of Execution 2/11
1675 Johnsons' Elliot Lake sub-Standard report 2/11
1676 SANE Sustainable Complementary Currency systems? 2/11
1677 Nobel scientist Frederick Soddy gets Money wrong 2/11
1678 Supreme Court ducks Hitzig Stay of Execution? 2/16
1679 Armstrong's Krieger Challenge on March 1 2/18
1680 Letter to Ontario's Chief Justices re taping 2/18
1681 Gravel's 2/24 Double Date in Quebec Courts 2/18
1682 Pierre Bourque cowed with the rest of the presstitutes? 2/18
1683 Buors still ducking Krieger inmate appeal 2/19
1684 Krieger hand-out artillery 2/20
1685 Krieger hand-out artillery recap 2/20
1686 Gravel's Krieger inmate release set for 2/24 2/21
1687 Gravel's Krieger hearing for 2/23!!! Not 24 2/22
1688 Turmel: Glitch delays Gravel release to Tuesday 2/23
1689 Quebec Court of Appeal recommends lighter pot sentences!! 2/25

MARCH 2005
1692 Gravel Krieger Release Round 4; Round 5 Tuesday 3/3
1693 Visit to the Supreme Court of Canada Registry 3/3
1694 Armstrong's Krieger quash delayed to March 22 3/3
1695 Krieger v. Clay/Caine/Malmo-Levine at SCC 3/3
1696 Guinness Record 59th Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey election 3/4
1697 Game of "Cops and Gardeners" gets deadly 3/5
1698 Dufferin Byelection meetings offer Krieger breakthrough 3/5
1699 Nielsens' Festeryga transcript 3/6
1700 "Trade relations" worth "epileptic lives?" 3/6
1701 The Special breaks Parker psycho-surgery scandal 3/7
1702 Requete pour liberation en attendant appel 3/7
1703 First chance to highlight Krieger not in the cards 3/7
1704 Gravel Krieger Release Round 5, Le Droit 3/9
1705 Crown's Factum in Drouin Krieger Quash!!! 3/10
1706 Gravel Krieger Release Round 5 Report 3/11
1707 First meeting in Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey 3/11
1708 Crown Factum in Drouin's Krieger Quash Parsed 3/11
1709 #B Crown Factum in Drouin's Krieger Quash Parsed 3/11
1710 Ontario Dufferin Byelection Report 3/13
1711 Supreme Court rules on Hitzig Resurrection Challenge 3/14
1712 Supreme Court rules on "Letter/Spirit" S.5 Challenge 3/14
1713 Binnie J.S.C.C. bungles Hitzig Stay of Execution 3/17
1714 Noreen Evers throws in the kitchen sink 3/17
1715 #2 Noreen Evers throws in the kitchen sink 3/17
1716 #3 Noreen Evers throws in the kitchen sink 3/17
1717 #4 Noreen Evers throws in the kitchen sink 3/17
1718 Ontario Dufferin Byelection Results 3/18
1719 Johnsons' Serre decision on Krieger 3/21
1720 Judge Binnie dismisses Noreen's Krieger quash 3/21
1721 #2 Krieger v. Clay/Caine/Malmo-Levine at SCC 3/21
1722 Gravel Krieger Release Round 6 Report 3/26
1723 Le Droit: Court downs Mari-culturalist Gravel in Round 7 3/27
1724 Gravel Krieger Release Round 7 Report John Turmel 3/27
1725 Le Droit: Gravel Krieger Quash suffers Round 8 reversal 3/31

APRIL 2005
1728 Virgil's Questions for John 4/4
1729 Rev. Ethier's Sturgeon Falls Court Report 4/4
1730 SCC Registrar Squelched Hitzig Stay of Execution 4/4
1731 Judge notices Gravel slip and delays Quash to 4/12 4/4
1732 Guinness Record is on/off proposition 4/4
1733 Gravel Double-Header on Tuesday 4/7
1734 Greco June 2005 Course on Monetary and BankingFreedom 4/10
1735 Avi Lewis - Naomi Klein "The Take" Stinks 4/10
1736 Gravel Double-Header Rounds 9/10 Report 4/14
1737 4/19 Motion for Election as to trial 4/14
1738 Csomor Brothers' Turmelmovie in the news 4/14
1739 Judge Turpin says Gravel's quash "constitutional" 4/20
1740 Turmelmovie DVD rentable in Ottawa 4/21
1741 Judge Turpin blows Gravel's non-constitutional motion 4/21
1742 Judge Peter Wright nixes >3Kg election 4/24
1743 Justice Roy needs transcript in >3Kg election 4/26
1744 Supreme Court to re-rail medpot applications?? 4/26

MAY 2005
1747 Judge Landry on Gravel's pre-trial 5/7
1748 Babylonian Banking Question 5/23
1749 Tax credits for growing free pot? 5/24
1750 Judge Nadeau tells Drouin Krieger no good 5/26

JUNE 2005
1753 Bringing SCC Krieger ruling to Fill The Hill today 6/11
1754 White flour causes diabetes???!!! 6/21
1755 Mediterranean Tunnel financed a la LETS? 6/21
1756 #2 Mediterranean Tunnel financed a la LETS? 6/22
1757 Drouin & Nadeau File for Krieger prohibition 6/24
1758 DVD riles Expositor Editor David Judd 6/25
1759 #3 Mediterranean Tunnel financed a la LETS? 6/25
1760 Drouin & Nadeau Pre-trials in Cochrane 6/25
1761 Charbonneau Appeal Order being sought 6/28

JULY 2005
1764 Re: Supreme Court blows off Turmel pot case 7/2
1765 Sicily-Tunisia Tunnel Documents 7/7
1766 Siebenthal's Social Credit currencies 7/7
1767 Drouin's Krieger Factum to prohibit charges 7/8
1768 Yeehaa! Prorogation to kill Decrim Bill C-10? 7/10
1769 Russell Barth on Marijuana 'Decriminalization' Bill 7/11
1770 Russell Barth can't get timeline right? 7/12
1771 TAJPROFESSOR: Banned from Brantford Poker Casino for colorin 7/14
1772 Dick Racey's "Chimps are Chumps for Chips" 7/18
1773 TAJPROFESSOR: #2 Banned from Brantford Poker Casino for colo 7/21
1774 DeMeulenaere's UNILETS database now online? 7/22
1775 Judge foils Gatineau Ganja Growers' Jail Break 7/29
1776 #2 Gatineau Ganja Growers' Jail Break Aug 1

AUGUST 2005
1779 Gaetan Millette seeks jail break on Krieger tomorrow 8/2
1780 Will Emery be shipped south before Krieger wins? 8/3
1781 Gaetan Millette abandons his Krieger jail break 8/3
1782 Doncha Just HATE Em? Emery, that is... 8/4
1783 AIDS sufferer Marcel Mercier seeks release pending appeal 8/10
1784 Wright Transcript for jury election for Certiorari motion 8/10
1785 Gwynne Dyer falls for Big Lie 8/10
1786 USENET posts being censored??? 8/12
1787 AIDS sufferer Marcel Mercier denied release or appeal 8/13
1788 Judge suspends Rod Barclay's release pending appeal 8/14
1789 Unauthorized dining needs more brown-nosing? 8/19
1790 AIDS victim Mercier jerked around by jailers and court 8/20
1791 Hamilton's Up In Smoke Cafe 1st year March 8/20
1792 Jerked around 5 weeks by Crown James Gorham 8/23
1793 Krieger Prohibition Being filed Monday in ALBERTA!!!!! 8/26
1794 Cornelssen files Krieger Prohibition in ALBERTA! 8/30
1795 AIDS victim Mercier gets his hearing tomorrow 8/30
1796 Krieger challenge in ON N.E. region 8/31

SEPTEMBER 2005
1799 Parker gets Charbonneau and Lederman Orders 9/1
1800 SANE gets its money engineering wrong? 9/1
1801 AIDS victim Marcel Mercier gets jerked around again 9/1
1802 Cornelssen's Krieger S.7 Cultivation Challenge 9/21 9/2
1803 Drouin-Martin prohibition ruling 9/09 Friday 9/3
1804 Michael Ethier remanded to 9/29 9/5
1805 IJCCR upset by Lunatic Socred(?) William B Ryan 9/5
1806 Lunatic Socred William Ryan rants along 9/6
1807 Bet on the Clown? 9/8
1808 Medpot Engineer Turmel at Mead Hall in Edmonton on 19th 9/9
1809 Blondie demonstrates financial insecurity 9/12
1810 Medpot Re-Criminalization bill shelved 9/12
1811 CLT-TV West Wing cites zero marijuana deaths 9/12
1812 budEluv cites Hitzig for 4000 marijuana stays 9/13
1813 CLT-TV West Wing's zero marijuana deaths 9/13
1814 Ryan finds The Engineer's great mistake??? 9/13
1815 AMI 2005 Chicago Monetary Reform conference 9/13
1816 Gauvin (B.Sc) at Carleton U with Turmel (B.Eng) 9/14
1817 Three medpot inmates @ Montreal Court of Appeal Friday 9/14
1818 Trois detenus de medpot @ Cour d'appel Mtl Vendredi 9/14
1819 Two wrong Krieger URLs 9/14
1820 West Wing and Doonesbury have weak stats? 9/21
1821 Tory Margaret Kopala supports nerd Harper on pot 9/21
1822 Judge Morrissette reserves on two inmate releases 9/21
1823 Crown Reply to Cornelssen Krieger Prohibition 9/21
1824 LETS in Brazil has dangerous feedback 9/25
1825 Mercier jerked around by Legal Aid again 9/25
1826 Japan Timetrading by Seniors Cooperative 9/25
1827 Japan Timetrading by Seniors Cooperative 9/25
1828 SANE gets more money engineering wrong 9/25
1829 Linton on my downgrading Money Reformers 9/25
1830 Don Faulkner should like Parker's ruling 9/25
1831 Mercier: AIDS couple busted smuggling pot at jail 9/26
1832 Judge Morrissette's Barclay-Levert Decisions 9/26
1833 File tampering railroads Cornelssen out of court 9/26
1834 Commentary on Barclay-Levert Decisions 9/26
1835 Comments on Ray Turmel's QC Cour d'appel ruling 9/26
1836 Edmonton Sun breaks Cornelssen Krieger Challenge 9/28
1837 Barclay Appeal Court re-match, Levert bites the dust 9/29

OCTOBER 2005
1840 #A Crown Factum in Drouin-Martin Krieger challenge 10/4
1841 #B Crown Factum in Drouin-Martin Krieger challenge 10/4
1842 No banning "Back-Down" "No-Can-Bet" Ryan 10/4
1843 Richard Gagne seeks Krieger prohibition in Gatineau 10/5
1844 Brian Norman applies Krieger pressure in Owen Sound 10/6
1845 BC Maniotis Case echoes Cornelssen Krieger prohibition? 10/6
1846 UNILETS branch in Uganda? 10/6
1847 Richard Gagne Krieger prohibition put off to 10/20 10/7
1848 Young's Hitzig Prohibition Resurrection 2nd Anniversary 10/7
1849 LETS Winnipeg makes the news 10/8
1850 Max Cornelssen's Letter to the Crown 10/9
1851 Hitzig lawyers called upon again!! 10/9
1852 Prohibitionist beefs if Cornelssen wins Krieger invalidation 10/10
1853 Cornelssen Reply to Crown in Krieger invalidation challenge 10/10
1854 Cornelssen Sept 21 Smith Derailment Transcript 10/13
1855 Cornelssen Crown Supplementary Reply to Krieger Prohibition 10/14
1856 B.C. Smith case upstages Cornelssen Krieger Prohibition 10/15
1857 Judge Wilson ducks Cornelssen Krieger Prohibition 10/16
1858 Mercier / Barclay seek release 10/20 10/17
1859 Courterelle putting things in perspective 10/17
1860 Cornelssen files Krieger Quash! Har har har har 10/17
1861 Judge ducks Krieger jurisdiction transcript 10/18
1862 Brain cell loss stemmed by cannabis!!! 10/18
1863 On Conscious Living Show Thursday live 10/19
1864 Are Argentina's Provincial Bonds still used? 10/19
1865 Ont. police chiefs call for more prisons 10/19
1866 Argentina's Provincial Bonds no longer in use! 10/21
1867 Cornelssen Krieger Quash delayed to Nov 16 10/21
1868 Re: On Conscious Living Show Thursday live 10/22
1869 Argentina's Provincial Bonds discontinued 10/22
1870 Nielsen transcript of Edward quash hearing 10/26
1871 Cornelssen Final Submissions todasy 10/26
1872 Judge Nadeau reserves on Drouin Krieger Prohibition 10/27
1873 Gatineau Gang's Krieger moves Nov 3/4/7 10/27
1874 Pot not a major cancer risk: report 10/27

NOVEMBER 2005
1877 Prohibition and Certiorari Motions set for Nov 28 11/1
1878 Marcel Mercier gets day Quebec's highest Court 11/1
1879 Update on Noreen Evers' BC Krieger Quash 11/2
1880 #2 Update on Noreen Evers' BC Krieger Quash 11/2
1881 Cornelssen Crown's last word before hearing 11/5
1882 #2 Cornelssen Crown's last word before hearing 11/5
1883 #3 Cornelssen Crown's last word before 11/7
1884 Cornelssen Crown's greatest nightmare arrives 11/7
1885 Susan Godbout & Richard Gagne in Quebec Provincial Court 11/7
1886 Court Nixes Marcel Mercier's 1-day-late appeal 11/10
1887 Cornelssen subpoenas Krieger Counsel and Crown 11/10
1888 Capital Punishment for Krieger Counsel and Crown? 11/11
1889 Cornelssen Crown's Greatest Nightmare 11/12
1890 Krieger Crown's Written Submission for O'Leary Stay 11/13
1891 TURMEL:, Man, who, financed, law's, resurrection, busted!!! 11/15
1892 Crown moves to quash Cornelssen subpoenas 11/15
1893 Krieger Crown Couper's Submissions for O'Leary Stay 11/15
1894 Cornelssen files extra material for Krieger quash 11/15
1895 Cornelssen files appeal of Wilson Prohibition denial 11/15
1896 Cornelssen files extra material for Krieger quash 11/15
1897 Judge defers Krieger lawyer Iovinelli's subpoena 11/16
1898 Cornelssen blitzes Law and Journalism faculties 11/16
1899 National Capital Freenet (ncf) email failed 11/18
1900 Susan Godbout Krieger prohibition jerked around 11/19
1901 Judge Read doesn't buy O'Leary stay still alive 11/19
1902 Conrad Black not Carleton U.'s most notorious criminal 11/19
1903 Cornelssen asks Judge Read to reconsider Krieger Quash!! 11/20
1904 Interview // Pot and Driving campaign 11/23
1905 Cornelssen re-hearing sidetracked to wrong judge 11/23
1906 Heavy action on House of Commons bust coming up 11/24
1907 Appeal Court registrar writes Cornelssen 11/24
1908 Angel Raich jumps on "genocide" bandwagon 11/26
1909 Justice Chambers ducks Cornelssen issues 11/26
1910 PRESS RELEASE faxed to the Ottawa media 11/27
1911 Justice MacLeod reserves on Turmel Krieger Prohibition  11/29

DECEMBER 2005
1913 House of Commons Bust quash motion filed for Thursday 12/2
1914 Justice MacLeod says Krieger invalidation not in Ontario 12/2
1915 Justice MacLeod says Crown can lie on indictment 12/2
1916 Parker & Paquette swear SCC Hitzig Resurrection challenges! 12/6
1917 Judge Belanger adjourns Krieger Quash 12/7
1918 Motion to adjourn trial til after higher court remedies 12/7
1919 Justice Nadeau dismisses Drouin Krieger Prohibition 12/7
1920 Herb Re-Criminalization bill gone up in smoke again 12/8
1921 Professeur Saboteur Alan Young always wrong 12/8
1922 Italian Center for Monetary Studies off base 12/8
1923 #4 Argentina's Provincial Bonds discontinued 12/8
1924 Pot law resurrectionist Alison Myrden needs help 12/11
1925 House of Commons Bust Trial adjournment denied 12/13
1926 Extraordinary appeals against marijuana charge filed 12/17
1927 Grower Richard Johnson gets 6 months probation 12/17
1928 Judge Belanger starts House of Commons bust trial 12/17
1929 3 Hitzig Resurrection challenges filed in SCC 12/17
1930 #2 3 Hitzig Resurrection challenges filed in SCC 12/17
1931 Running in Guinness 60th election, not with the Greens 12/21
1932 UNILETS is an incredible-concept.com 12/21
1933 #2 UNILETS is an incredible-concept.com 12/22
1934 World Social Currency at 2006 Forum in Venezuela 12/23
1935 Venezuela's Hugo Chavez for LETS Social Currency 12/23
1936 Contacting Hugo Chavez on Sociable Currencies 12/25
1937 Michael Day's Venezuela Journal Report 12/29

JANUARY 2006
1938 Pierre Drouin's Quash hearing transcript 1/1
1939 Parker's Hitzig Resurrection challenge in SCC accepted 1/1
1940 Invite to Hugo Chavez for social currency lecture 1/1
1941 File - mptopics.txt MedPot@yahoogroups.com 1/1
1942 Guinness Record "Most elections contested" now 60 1/3
1943 Election #60 to Guinness Incomplete Records 1/5
1944 Paquette's Hitzig Resurrection challenge in SCC refused 1/7
1945 Brantford Candidates Debate on Rogers Cable 1/7
1946 Picketing Tory Stephen Harper at McColeman's HQ 1/7
1947 Phearful Phil McColeman calls Debate Police on Turmel 1/7
1948 Venezuela could bank the global economic game 1/7
1949 Stephen "Traitor to Pepsi Generation" Harper in Brant 1/8
1950 Parker's letter to the SCC clerk 1/9
1951 Transcript of Phearful Phil McColeman calling cops 1/9
1952 #B Transcript of Phearful Phil McColeman calling cops 1/9
1953 Father of Dentistry Pierre Fauchard used Urine! 1/10
1954 Expositor does cover Harper picket 1/10
1955 Healer From Within saves teeth too 1/12
1956 Hapless Harper traitor to Star Trek Generation 1/12
1957 Nielsens' Factum filed and Turmel slated for 23rd too 1/13
1958 Picketing Paul Martin; Rogers debate online 1/13
1959 Criminal Protestors; Reply to Expositor unpublished 1/14
1960 Parker's 2nd letter to the SCC clerk 1/14
1961 No WSF social currency lecture listed; Kennedy's heaven 1/14
1962 Dempsey class action banking suit off-target 1/14
1963 Abolitionist only wants Afghan exit? Mulroney mob again? 1/15
1964 Crown's response to Parker resurrection challenge 1/15
1965 Krieger takes loser to Supreme Court 1/15
1966 Wrong URL for Parker Crown Memorandum 1/16
1967 David Judd's Expositor coverage even worse 1/16
1968 CKCO Michael Melling report on CTV Canada AM 1/16
1969 Written Arguments to quash marijuana charge now 1/16
1970 Noreen Evers' Krieger Quash foiled by Kubby "Oops" 1/17
1971 St. Gabriel school holds not-all-candidates' debate 1/18
1972 David Judd explains why Turmel reply not published 1/18
1973 Editor Judd lauds school's not-all-candidates' debate 1/19
1974 Picketing Green leader Jim Harris in Brantford 1/19
1975 Not-all-candidates' debate has more supporters 1/19
1976 Other bellwether medpot cases leading sheople astray 1/19
1977 Crooked Editor David Judd bluffs on facts 1/21
1978 Parker's Supreme Court Reply to Crown 1/23
1979 Judge Goudge consolidates with Nielsens appeal 1/23
1980 Super Winner-Loser fails again in 60th election race 1/24
1981 Michael Fighting White Berets finally support LETS? 1/24
1982 Social Credit: not Socialism, not a political party 1/25
1983 Beyond the LETS solution. 1/25
1984 Nielsen Hearing for Stay before Justice Lang 1/29

FEBRUARY 2006
1985 File - mptopics.txt MedPot@yahoogroups.com 2/1
1986 Google reports on Social Currencies at WSF 2006 2/6
1987 #2 Google reports on Social Currencies at WSF 2006 2/6
1988 Davos draws media away from World Social Forum 2/6
1989 Emery's Cannabis Culture Crowd losing again 2/6
1990 Failure to use poker chip model causes errors 2/6
1991 Argentina Massive Debt Paid Off Two Years Early 2/6
1992 Complaint about Judd lies to Ontario Press Council 2/6
1993 TAJPROFESSOR: Brantford casino sniffs gamblers for pot odor 2/6
1994 2006 World Social Forum UNILETS Report 2/7
1995 Appeal for Certiorari set for March 28 2/8
1996 What to do with resources... File: timeline.txt 2/8
1997 Turmel on http://www.ckln.fm today at 2pm turmel@ncf
1998 Welcome to the new members of Parliament 2/12
1999 Saner drug laws go up in smoke with Tories 2/12
2000 UNILETS is Thomas More's Utopia with 1/s accounting 2/12
2001 Derek Francisco files Krieger Quash in Ontario 2/12
2002 Madron & Jopling Gaian Democracies no Utopia 2/12
2003 Time as Money is a Golden Idea? 2/12
2004 UNILETS is an incredible-concept.com 2/13
2005 H.G. Wells' Open Conspiracy for Heaven 2/15
2006 Good News!! Francisco's wife's charges are withdrawn! 2/15
2007 Cornelssen gets Costigan for appeal motion 2/15
2008 SunMoney: A new Combination Economy NOT 2/19
2009 Bill Ryan forces correction of great mistake! 2/19
2010 #2 SunMoney: A new Combination Economy NOT 2/21
2011 #A "Judge Read nixes Cornelssen Krieger Quash" transcript 2/23
2012 #B "Judge Read nixes Cornelssen Krieger Quash" transcript 2/23
2013 #C "Judge Read nixes Cornelssen Krieger Quash" transcript 2/23
2014 #D "Judge Read nixes Cornelssen Krieger Quash" transcript 2/23
2015 #E "Judge Read nixes Cornelssen Krieger Quash" transcript 2/23
2016 "Trial start before Judge Belanger" Transcript 2/26
2017 #B "Trial start before Judge Belanger" Transcript 2/26
2018 Exciting IJCCR Sun Money debates turn to Ducknipples 2/26
2019 Exciting IJCCR Sun Money debates turn to Ducknipples 2/26
2020 Bill Ryan obsessed by urine therapy 2/26
2021 Reply to Crown's Krieger Quash submissions 2/26
2022 Difference between house and money assets 2/28
2023 Bill Ryan still vandalizing posts 2/28
2024 CBS 60 Minutes sheep-dips Marc the Narc Mole Emery

MARCH 2006
2025 File - mptopics.txt  MedPot@yahoogroups.com 3/01
2026 Can the John Turmel rant be removed? 3/2
2027 Crown prepares Drouin-Martin appeal books 3/2
2028 Ryan still vandalizing posts after losing debate 3/4
2029 Cannabis Vulture Narc Emery claiming "law is dead" 3/6
2030 Two of all censored Timebanking messages not relevant 3/6
2031 Bert Manning can't find page Ryan vandalised? 3/6
2032 Facing jail always unnerving 3/9
2033 Bill Ryan continues making pissy posts in debate 3/11
2034 House of Commons Bust Conviction and sentencing 3/11
2035 "Prince of Pot" no "Rot" at Paquette's Webpage! 3/12
2036 60 Minutes gives time to pot activist Marc Emery 3/12
2037 Court Clutz Young in Hamilton Kamikaze Case 3/13
2038 #B Court Clutz Young in Hamilton Kamikaze Case 3/13
2039 Ryan continues pissy abuse, Kay & Yacub approve 3/14
2040 Judge Belanger Parliament Bust conviction transcript 3/15
2041 Chris Goodwin on CH-TV minus Alan Young 3/15
2042 Ryan still vandalising Google Groups search function 3/16
2043 Guinness Record 61st Nepean-Carleton Byelection 3/16
2044 Richard Kay continues to support Bill Ryan 3/19
2045 Ontario Press Council demands Expositor's Judd answer 3/19
2046 Ottawa Rogers Debate Tuesdays 9pm Wednesdays noon 3/21
2047 Supreme Court Registrar may dismiss Parker's appeal 3/21
2048 Expositor editor David Judd has no answer for Press Council 3/21
2049 Turmel: Young gofer Steve Bacon with Krieger? 3/22
2050 Crown Factum in 3/28 Big Six appeal 3/22
2051 Pierre Drouin Factum (he got his medical exemption!) 3/24
2052 New Factums at mpforms ready 3/28
2053 William Ryan's effect on USENET sci.engr 3/30
2054 $1000 Fine, 100 Hours Comm. Service, 3 Years probation 3/30
2055 Ottawa Sun on Turmel sentencing 3/31

APRIL 2006
2056 File - mptopics.txt  MedPot@yahoogroups.com 4/1, 2006
2057 Puru Saxena's "Wealth Illusion" is illusion 4/3
2058 Barter Blog on Brazil Social Currency systems 4/3
2059 Jeff Morris: You've got to know when to hold'em 4/4
2060 #2 Barter Blog on Brazil Social Currency 4/7
2061 #3 Barter Blog on Brazil Social Currency 4/10
2062 TAJPROFESSOR: Banned from Brantford Poker for words 4/10
2063 Turmel, Drouin, Martin appeal hearings 4/14
2064 Supreme Court Clerk aborts Parker's appeal 4/15
2065 Jewish Social Currency Engineer? 4/16
2066 Turmel-Drouin-Martin Consolidated Marijuana Factum 4/18
2067 #2 Turmel-Drouin-Martin Consolidated Factum 4/18
2068 TAJPROFESSOR: Premier McGuinty letter re: lost rake-off 4/21
2069 Richard Werner's Old Paradigm in Macroeconomics 4/22
2070 Green Elizabeth May "Judas Goat" like Jim Harris too? 4/23
2071 Why 5 judges for Hitzig resurrection challenge 4/24
2072 Nielsens end case with return of their property 4/25
2073 Elizabeth May NOT "Judas Goat" like Green Jim Harris? 4/25
2074 Challenging SCC Registrar's Parker abort 4/25

MAY 2006
2075 Credit for 4000 stays to Parker, Turmel & third guy 5/1
2076 File - mptopics.txt  MedPot@yahoogroups.com 5/1
2077 4000 stays by Three Medpot Musketeers 5/2
2078 Crown case against 5 judges in 3 Musketeer appeals 5/6
2079 Parker SCC reconsideration of medpot law resurrection 5/6
2080 Inflation Shift A, A, A... no B? 5/7
2081 Helsinki Oranssi Social Currency for housing? 5/10
2082 Helsinki Oranssi Social Housing Currency NOT 5/11
2083 Why 3 Medpot Musketeer appeals need 5 judges 5/11
2084 RIBA and USURY practise and preaching 5/17
2085 Ryan says "10 can't repay 11" is fallacy; any bets? 5/18
2086 Charles Holt Carroll (1799-1890) wrong too 5/18
2087 Canada Post search finds Parker's Pot; suing for replevin 5/18
2088 Islamic group censors "RIBA and USURY" article 5/20
2089 Alan Young for Goodwin's "major" "worthless" case 5/21
2090 Chicago Reader article on Dane Timebank 5/23
2091 Piss-possessed Bill Ryan apologist for usury 5/26
2092 Brantford Community Service Accordion Concerts 5/26
2093 Lasychuk won't offer more profitable game! 5/31
2094 AMERIKA's Money - FIAT well of course. NOT 5/31
2095 Noreen Evers fined $3K, forfeiture, 1 Yr probation 5/31

JUNE 2006
2096 File - mptopics.txt  MedPot@yahoogroups.com 6/2
2097 Terry Parker seeks pot seized by Canada Post 6/3
2098 Dempsey's anti-bank class action is a fraud 6/4
2099 Noreen Evers' Appeal in B.C. 6/4
2100 Judge Doherty reasons for Noreen Evers sentence 6/6
2101 Social Credit Matriarch at 3rd Bilderberg picket 6/6
2102 Ontario Press Council won't adjudicate Judd complaint! 6/6
2103 Judge Doherty reasons for Noreen Evers convictions 6/7
2104 Doug Nielsen's Medpot Plea Bargain Transcript 6/7
2105 Saba defends Dempsey's anti-bank class action fraud 6/7
2106 Derek Francisco nixes Crown Medpot Plea Bargain!!! 6/7
2107 Crown case in Parker Supreme Court challenge 6/8
2108 3rd Turmel Bilderberg picket 1983 1996 2006 6/11
2109 Bilderberg Reports miss 22-year protest 6/12
2110 Victor Thorn and Alex Jones on Bilderbergs 6/13
2111 Zarlenga's American Monetary Institute wrong but growing 6/14
2112 MedPot Parker's Reply to Supreme Court abandonment 6/14
2113 Grant Krieger on another off-target quest! 6/15
2114 McMurtry J. nixes 5-judge panel for medpot challenge 6/16
2115 Crown's pulls "fait accomplit" shuffle on Parker 6/22

JULY 2006
2116 File - mptopics.txt  MedPot@yahoogroups.com 7/1
2117 Cannabis Marijuana Pot Kills Cancer Cells 7/9
2118 Rothstein nixes most vital medpot hearing on technicality 7/9
2119 James Haarp's Cosmic Horizons Sun July 16 8:45p.m. 7/9
2120 Parker Crown ducks exam he said was needed 7/12
2121 Virginia Livingston M.D. Cancer Quack or Genius? 7/16
2122 Parker's Canada Post Pot seizure Pre-trial 7/18
2123 British Legion to organize Timebanks!!! 7/18
2124 Int'l Social Currency Conference in Germany September 7/18
2125 Shift A inflation Big Lie never ends 7/23

AUGUST 2006
2126 Derek Francisco charges dropped, medpot returned!! 8/2
2127 File - mptopics.txt  MedPot@yahoogroups.com 8/2
2128 York U. posts Professeur Saboteur's false record! 8/2
2129 4 more Canuck patsies for US Afghan pipeline invasion 8/5
2130 Canadian invaders ambush 72 innocent Taliban defenders 8/21
2131 Health Canada ducks Brock's exemption renewal bullet 8/22
2132 Canuck bites Afghan dust, M.P. Lauzon uninterested 8/23
2133 Is problem really "global cooling?" 8/24
2134 Nuclear power for Canada, France, Germany, not Iran 8/30

SEPTEMBER 2006
2135 File - mptopics.txt  MedPot@yahoogroups.com 9/2
2136 Pro-LETS Elizabeth 5/new Green Party leader 9/3
2137 Parker examines Crown re medpot seizure 9/3
2138 Crown wants MedPot Terry Parker doctor-shopping 9/4
2139 Need medpot doctor-shopping horror stories 9/5
2140 Upcoming Parkdale-High Park Byelection Meetings 9/5
2141 Professor scores Stan Szopa "F" for "failure" again 9/12
2142 Brantford Timebank for municipal elections? 9/12
2143 NDP Cheri DiNovo, best of the bad, wins Parkdale by-election 9/16
2144 Rudy Seegobin: Target For Destruction 9/19
2145 Judge Rosemay passes off Parker's hot potato 9/20
2146 Green leader 5/blowing once-in-4-year chance? 9/22
2147 What else Hugo Chavez said about Devil Bush 9/23
2148 Worse news next, Harper won't quit. 9/24
2149 Bad news first: Afghan mission chasing wrong perps 9/24
2150 Green Party leader May's last chance for great move! 9/26
2151 Brantford mayoralty is Guinness Record 63rd election 9/29
2152 Green leader cheering from sidelines 9/30

OCTOBER 2006
2153 Law threatens everyone everywhere with Bush-whacking 10/1
2154 Good news: Senator Inhofe says Global warming fraud 10/1
2155 #B: Good news: Senator Inhofe says Global warming fraud 10/1
2156 File - mptopics.txt  MedPot@yahoogroups.com 10/1
2157 Liberty Dollar Straw Man Judas Goat 10/1
2158 Tim Philp fires shot across bow 10/3
2159 Rogers Cable Profile for election 10/6
2160 Narc moles on CBC's Escape to Canada 10pm 10/15  10/11
2161 Ontario Gov. fixing fatal flaw in Toronto Dollars 10/12
2162 Chamber of Commerce Candidates Survey 10/14
2163 Derek Francisco helps Rudy Seegobin's Medpot Ultimatum 10/14
2164 Rotary Club mayoral debate badly covered by Judd 10/18
2165 #2 Ontario Gov. fixing fatal flaw in Toronto Dollars 10/18
2166 McAllister credited with Parker invalidation 10/18
2167 Venezuela Ministry of Popular Economy Pilots Social Currency 10/18
2168 Editor Judd's hatchet job smear on Friel continues 10/19
2169 P***-Boy Ryan p***ing off sci.engineering group 10/20
2170 Brantford poll shows 41% pea-brained and not divine 10/20
2171 General, Davies, can't, deny, we're, the, bad, guys", in Afghanistan 10/21
2172 Predicted Argentine financial miracle in 2001 10/22
2173 Editor Judd's still smearing Friel is bad manners 10/23
2174 Peace Prize for Yunus' micro-loansharking to the poor 10/23
2175 Rogers debate dumbed down to Philp level? 10/24
2176 "What inflation isn't" expert rejects what it is 10/26
2177 Rogers TV producers dictate City Hall debate rules 10/26
2178 Pro-Gambler's confidence is Engineer's confidence 10/28
2179 Krieger wins his medpot case at Supreme Court 10/28
2180 "David Judd's a pig" blurted on TV debate 10/28

NOVEMBER 2006
2182 Fuhrer Philp controls questions for Rogers debate 11/2
2183 Rogers debate "enlightening, delighting, and exciting" 11/2
2184 History Bites Torturers of American Justice 11/3
2185 Marijuana a hit at Pauline Johnson H.S. debate 11/4
2186 Last Brantford mayoral debates Tuesday 11/6
2187 Brantford Online Timebank softwares to consider: 11/6
2188 No one likes the dog that brings the fleas 11/6
2189 Last Brantford mayoral debates 11/8
2190 Withdrawing to support Friel! A first!!!  11/9
2191 Editor Judd fails to publish my support for Friel 11/10
2192 Judd censors reply to Philp attack 11/12
2193 Fuhrer Philp back on attack 11/12
2194 Hancock beats Friel by 165, Turmel still gets 226 11/14
2195 Expositor prints defence to Philp attack 11/15
2196 Last Brantford mayoral questions 11/19
2197 Prof. Auriti gets "F" in Banking System Engineering 11/19
2198 Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy like John? 11/20
2199 Mugging Brantford Casino patrons 11/24

DECEMBER 2006
2201 Crown in Seegobin's Krieger Prohibition for Dec. 14 12/12
2202 Marc Beaudoin files Krieger Prohibition in Lindsay 12/17
2203 Seegobin judge ducks hot potato to Jan 26 12/17
2204 Open Letter to John Turmel on banking 12/22
2205 Brit MDs say pot could kill 30,000; zero so far 12/22
2206 Judas Goat Liberty Dollars linked to CC by DeMeulenaere 12/22
2207 Gerald Ford: Fixer of Kennedy's Magic Bullet Theory 12/28

JANUARY 2007
2209 Show misses "Greatest Canadian Invention" 1/4
2210 Judge Clements gives Parker's Crown hard time 1/4
2211 Big Three "House of Commons Medpot Bust" Appeals Feb 23 2006 1/13
2212 World's Oldest Political Blog's 10th Year 1/22
2213 Seegobin gets medpot exemption, trial goes on! 1/23
2214 Randy Post files Krieger Motion in Brantford 1/23
2215 Crown staying Seegobin medpot charges to duck Krieger App. 1/27
         FEBRUARY 2007
2217 Burlington Ontario 2007 byelection report 2/3
2218 House of Commons bust marijuana conviction Factum 2/5
2219 Terry Parker's Marijuana S.24 Claim on May 7 2/5
2220 Crown stays Seegobin marijuana charges  2/5
2221 Hitzig Order signed on SCC Krieger Day? 2/8
2222 #B Crown's Factum in Big Five Medpot Appeals Feb 23 2/12
2223 Crown's Factum in Big Five Medpot Appeals Feb 23 2/12
2224 R.I.P. Jean-Charles Pariseau 1st Marijuana Exemptee 2/16
2225 Islington Timebanker "Volunteer of the Year 2007" 2/25
          MARCH 2007
2227 Given bum's rush by Ontario Court of Appeal 3/2
2228 Justice in blunderland: Bum's rush by Court 3/9
2229 #2 Given bum's rush by Ontario Court of Appeal 3/9
2230 Bum's rush by Justice in Blunderland 3/11
2231 House of Commons Marijuana Bust Appeal Ruling 3/14
2232 Drouin-Martin "Krieger" medpot appeal ruling 3/17
2233 Crown's Factum on Parker's Medpot claim 3/23
2234 #B Crown's Factum on Parker's Medpot claim 3/25
               APRIL 2007
2236 Chavez engineers Time Standard of Money 4/2
2237 Ryan/Kline errors on "Money as Debt" errors 4/4
2238 Parker's Reply to Crown Factum on Medpot Claim 4/13
2239 #B Parker's Reply to Crown Factum on Medpot Claim 4/13
2240 Cannabis Marijuana Kills Cancer Cells!! 4/14
2241 Drouin-Martin medpot pre-trial coming up, maybe? 4/14
2242 Ryan/Kline can't take bet on unpayability of usury 4/14
2243 William Ernest Henley's INVICTUS 4/17
2244 3 Medpot Musketeers file 5 Apps in Supreme Court 4/26
2245 David "Bogus Krieger Stay" Frankel named B.C. Judge 4/26
2246 Drouin & Martin medpot grow case at Supreme Court 4/26
2247 Three Turmel Medpot Applications to Supreme Court 4/27
          MAY 2007
2249 Rudy Seegobin S.24 try for medpot return put offjohnturmel  5/9
2250 Parker's S.24 Medpot return decision adjournedjohnturmel  5/12
2251 David "200,000 Bogus Busts" Frankel promoted againjohnturmel  5/13
2252 Randy Post medpot charges withdrawnjohnturmel  5/14
2253 Medpot Dynamic Duo in Ontario Superior Courtjohnturmel  5/19
2254 Crown responds to 5 Supreme Court Medpot appeals
2255 Crown Response to Drouin's Krieger Cultivation appeal 5/31


















JCT: Most people didn't notice that when the Sfetkopoulos
decision ruled that the MMAR had been flawed since 2003 that that
meant the marijuana possession prohibition had been invalid the
whole time and is still now until they fix the flaw according to
Alan Young's on-off theory of penal statutes. Here's some
discussion about the Russell Barth's bone-headed move:

Date: Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:37 am
"John C. Turmel" <johnturmel@...
Re: TURMEL: Russell Barth to resurrect medpot prohibition after
Sfetkopoulos win

JCT: Anybody here cheering for Russell Barth to get Health Canada
to comply with the Sfetkopoulos ruling to fix the MMAR so the
Crown can say that the prohibition that's been dead since 2003
has been oopsed back alive?
Anyone disagree that we're better off without Barth's boner move?
--

Date: Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:16 am
Re: TURMEL: Russell Barth to resurrect medpot prohibition after
Sfetkopoulos win

--- In MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Marc Paquette" wrote:
MP: I found out recently (from a reliable source), that our
federal health minister Leona Aglukkaq wrote a letter dated April
24 2009 (after the SCC decision) to a licensed medical marijuana
grower - stating the following;
I regret the delay in responding... the Government of Canada will
not be issuing licences allowing a designated person to produce
marihuana for medical purposes for more than one authorized
person."... Thank you for writing. Sincerely,
<Signed> > Leona Aglukkaq "Minister of Health"

JCT: I need to get that letter to Justice Tulloch proving that
they are not complying and so the MMAR is flawed and the
prohibition is invalid.
--

Date: Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:25 am
"Marc Paquette" <paquettemarc@...
Re: TURMEL: Russell Barth to resurrect medpot prohibition after
Sfetkopoulos win
MP: I would get banned from this group for privacy violation if I
would give you more details John, but I believe that such HC
correspondence is available with an access to information
request. You have a letter date, and you know it regards the
MMAR, so that's a good start. Marc.

JCT: I'm sure I can find the time to dig it up to help get
prohibition declared of no force and effect.
--

Date: Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:28 am
"John C. Turmel" <johnturmel@...
Re: TURMEL: Russell Barth to resurrect medpot prohibition after
Sfetkopoulos win

--- In MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Marc Paquette" wrote:
> By the way John, I found you pretty rough on Russell Barth.
MP: Russell got over 800 letters against prohibition published in
many Canadian newspapers in the last year, and he's one of our
most active members in the MedPot.net Forums.

JCT: What do you think moles and saboteurs do to establish their
bona fides? Of course, he'd be most active before he oopses the
law back alive. I'm going to do a post re-reading the Ontario
Court of Appeal's JP ruling where they keep saying the the
prohibition is only valid with a valid MMAR. Barth's trying to
get it fixed and bring prohibition back alive. I want to keep it
unfixed and the prohibition still dead.

MP: Like I said, you can't blame ANY MMAR Exemptees if the
prohibition of marijuana is withheld by these regulations.

JCT: Just because you're an exemptee doesn't mean you can't be
working against the abolition of prohibition. Look at Allison
Myrden, one of the Hitzig crew who brought the law back alive.
And keeps dissing POLCOA, a 100% Alan Young supporter no matter
how many oopses and knives he's put in people's backs.

MP: You and many other of our current forum members should also
participate in our GREAT MedPot.net Forums - now with 351 members
and more than 121,000 topics and replies...allot of work! :)

JCT: I've never posted there because the moderator said he
wouldn't let my rough stuff through.
Anyway, all Barth's got to do is admit trying to fix the MMAR to
bring the law alive is a true boner move and he's happy to know
that an unfixed MMAR means that there's an unfixed prohibition.
After all the narc moles we've dealt with all these years, how
can you judge by what they say and not by what they do. Judge the
tree by it's fruit, not by its look. Sure, he's an active writer
but why doesn't he argue POLCOA or Sfetkopoulos that the law
remains invalid instead of presuming it's alive and working
within it. If he's a narc mole, I've blown his cover. If he's
just a court clutz, he can apologize and get out of our way if he
can't join the charge for repeal since 2003 or 2001 or even 1983.
--

Date: Wed Apr 29, 2009 5:03 pm
"John C. Turmel" <johnturmel@...>
Re: TURMEL: Russell Barth to resurrect medpot prohibition after
Sfetkopoulos win
--- In MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Marc Paquette" wrote:

MP: Russell Barth didn't have anything to do with Alan Young's
Carasel case, so he's not the one responsible for trying to fix
any parts of the MMAR - he's not to be blamed.

JCT: I didn't say that. Trying to get Health Canada to comply
when they are not complying right now is an error. I judge by the
errors.

MP: Anyway John, Health Canada will not be fixing these
deficiencies in their MMAR regulations, and if they can afford to
ignore the SCC without any consequences, they can also afford to
ignore Justice Tulloch's decision..if positive for Terry and all
of us! Remember that the MMAR were declared unconstitutional once
in Ontario (which was suppose to invalidate marijuana prohibition
within the CDSA law), but they were still arresting and
persecuting marijuana users. If Justice Tulloch declares the MMAR
unconstitutional again, I'm afraid that our medias won't be clear
about it (like the last time), and this absurd and unjust
marijuana prohibition within the CDSA law will continue. :(

JCT: We're not asking the judge to declare the prohibition
unconstitutional, that was done by Parker having the exemption
declared unconstitutional. We're asking the judge to declare the
prohibition of no longer known to law since at least "stupid
gimme" day if not Terry Parker Day.

MP: If fixing these regulations really do keep marijuana
prohibition alive, it's not our fault.

JCT: Don't you see how pushing to get them fixed when the
prohibition is invalid while they are not fixed isn't smart?

MP: You need solid evidence when you say that someone is a
"saboteur" or a "narc" mole, and Russell Barth certainly does not
fit this description!

JCT: He's pushing to have the MMAR fixed now that we have the
admission that it doesn't work. That certainly does fit the
description. Why don't you ask him what's wrong with having the
prohibition invalid while the MMAR is invalid? Why fix the MMAR
when its flaws make the prohibition void?
--

Date: Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:49 pm
KATHY LEWIS <kathylewis@...
Re: [MedPot-discuss] Re: TURMEL: Russell Barth to resurrect
medpot prohibition after Sfetkopoulos win

KL: I find this talk, especially about Russell Barth, to be
intimidating and discouraging.

JCT: I know that dealing with people who are hurting the abolish
prohibition movement is intimidating and discouraging. The best
moles always our greatest heroes.

KL: Russell writes a lot of very good letters and keeps on
writing when many have stopped.

JCT: What's what a good narc mole would be doing.

KL: Also, I find it unfair to attack Russell or anyone who is
questioning the validity of the MMAR and/or the governments
intransigence on prohibition.

JCT: I attack anyone who is going to hurt the abolish prohibition
movement no matter how lovable or misguided they are. When his
questioning results in the voiding of our victory, it is fair.

KL: Mistrust among exemptees and other drug anti-prohibitionists
is rampant by nature.

JCT: What do you expect? Are the Feds going to infiltrate bridge
clubs? Auto clubs? Pro-marijuana clubs? And their purpose is to
foment dissension. Allison Myrden cozied up to many of my medpot
warriors trying to get them stop. I identify them when I find out
they're still Alan Young supporters.

KL: It comes with the territory of being in this murky world of
illegality vs legality.

JCT: Yes it does. We've seen it all. And when they go after
things that are going to cost us our wins, I get brutal. I did
title my page MedPot Combat Engineering. People's lives are at
stake and I'm going to thump both morons and moles.

KL: Yet, there is a black and white kind of judgment happening
here that is polarizing, ramps up fear, and discourages people
from entering into open dialogue

JCT: Right, it's pretty white that with the Sfetkopoulos flaw in
the MMAR, the prohibition is not valid; and trying fix that flaw
to bring the prohibition back to life is pretty black.

KL: and asking questions that require answers so that we can act
according to what we believe is right and true.

JCT: I'm open about everything. We haven't heard from Russell
Barth. We've only heard from his friends who thinks he's a good-
natured court clutz who wants to take away our victory.

KL: Being accused or suspected of being a 'saboteur" is a
conversation stopper.

JCT: If he's successful, can the Crown say the law's back alive
pursuant to Alan Young's Hitzig resurrection precedent? Do you
want that? Or are you happier knowing that when the MMAR is
flawed, the prohibition is invalid?

KL: It's like being labeled a racist. Once that happens, anything
"the accused" says will be wrong and will give the label even
more credibility.

JCT: Being labeled a moron or a mole saboteur is not like being
labeled a racist. All he has to do is admit that trying to fix
the flaw in the MMAR is a boner of a move when that flaw is
what's making the prohibition dead. He has a fair out and if he
doesn't take it, then it looks more and more like mole over
moron.

KL: Then the accused is "outsidered". It's like maoism. It pits
us against one another and discourages critical debate which i
believe is necessary for us.

JCT: No, it challenges Barth to stop his detrimental action to
fix the MMAR and push to use the flaw in the MMAR to attack the
prohibition. If not, he's a moron or a mole.

KL: Personally, having committed myself to learning and doing
what I can about this murky mess of laws and SC decisions and
what they mean and what we can and can't do about them, has been
a huge,  exhilerating. but often terrifying, challenge. I've
asked many many questions and probably expressed opinions that I
held in ignorance. But if I hadn't asked stupid questions or
risked expressing opinions, then i wouldn't have learned anything
or been able to formulate a stance.

JCT: Why the dread? Admit a mistake, change direction, get on
with it.

KL: How conscious can people be of the possible consequences of
their every word action or word? Those with conspicuous power
should be under the magifying glass.

JCT: Barth wants to be a leader, be right.

KL: But most of us have no power in the way society defines that.
Many many of us have made mistakes we've lived to regret. For
some people, those mistakes compromise them because they or their
families are vulnerable to threats by the truly powerful. But
days that i feel terror at reading my e-mail for fear that I will
be accused of some dastardly deed, and "outsidered", are not good
days.

JCT: Sorry, made a mistake. What's next?

KL: This fight we are is between anti-prohibitionists and those
who personally or financially gain from maintaining prohibition.

JCT: I don't know what Barth has to gain from maintaining the
prohibition by fixing the MMAR.

KL: Asking the question "who benefits?" is always in my mind. But
i would hate to stop trying to change things for fear of my peers
turning on me if I utter one word that could be misconstrued as
"narcish" and stand in the way of ending prohibition.

JCT: That's why I don't care what anyone thinks of what I do or
say as long as they can't bet I'm wrong.

KL: Yet that could happen to any one of us because words get
twisted and distorted and  threats get made in back rooms by law
enforcement or government. We can't fortell the future or know
what cards the 'other side' holds Nobody will ever do anything
risky or public if we continue this accusatory practise among
ourselves. Everytime we risk being public, as Russell has, we
risk danger both from the law or the accusations from peers that
we are "on the dark side'. I can't see that Russell has great
power in the world, so I don't think he's out to get me by
perpetuating the MMAR.

JCT: If he's not working to perpetuate the MMAR to get you, why
do you think he is working to perpetuate the MMAR? Anyway, all
he's got to do is admit fixing the MMAR is a boner move and he
will have found the right direction to lead again.

KL: I think that everytime one of us batters away at the MMAR, we
are bringing the end of prohibition closer.

JCT: Closer? It's here! He's not bashing away at the MMAR,
Sfetkopoulos did that. He wants to fix it to bring prohibition
that is now dead back to life.

KL: But we can't always know that because we are not the ones in
power. Those with guns and money are in power.

JCT: We don't need guns and money to know, brains will do.

KL: So...my opinion is that if we want to be allies in the fight
to end prohibition, we should be open to critical debate,
questions and open dialogue amongst us without fear of being
labeled a traitor.

JCT: There's nothing wrong with a fear of being labeled a traitor
when you sabotage our win. I'm going to label them traitors. Get
used to it. Until they admit their error and switch, let them
fear The Engineer.

KL: Otherwise, we're just bullies. Sometimes you guys really
frighten me. Fear = silence. Silence = the reign of
authoritarianism. Isn't that what we're fighting?

JCT: When they have no response, when they fear to respond, it's
not a reign of authoritarianism, it's a reign of being right.

KL: If you want newcomers like myself to get scared, silent and
isolationist, then keep up trashing people trying to work things
out, and discourage free exchange of ideas and information and
working collaboratively in open debate.

JCT: I don't work with saboteurs and and I want people with
sabotage on their minds to stay scared, silent and isolationist.
I never met a saboteur I wanted to keep around. The fight over
legalising the world's best medicinal plant is a war with real
victims. You either join the charge to repeal the prohibition or
I bulldoze you if you are in the way. I haven't been called a 1-
man wrecking crew for nothing. No one with honest intentions has
ever been abused by me in our discussions. Only the morons who
won't listen and the moles who aren't listening.

KL: then keep up trashing people trying to work things out, and
discourage free exchange of ideas and information and working
collaboratively in open debate.

JCT: If that's the result of my trashing the traitors, fine. What
do you hope a free exchange of ideas and information and working
collaboratively in open debate will do? The strategy is clear.
POLCOA based on Parker, Krieger, Sfetkopoulos. Discuss tactics
all you want but when some leader is leading them away from the
right strategy and sabotaging our cards, expect war.

KL: The government machine wants to silence the true activists
against prohibition We're not them, are we?

JCT: Doesn't look like Russell's a true activist against
prohibition of Barth's Boner Bring Prohibition Back to life.
--

Date: Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:27 pm
"John C. Turmel" <johnturmel@...
Re: TURMEL: Russell Barth to resurrect medpot prohibition after
Sfetkopoulos win

--- In MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Muirhead" wrote:
> > JCT: He's pushing to have the MMAR fixed now that we have the
> > admission that it doesn't work. That certainly does fit the
> > description.
MM: No... he's pushing to force Health Canada and the AG to admit
that prohibition is *illegal*...

JCT: No he's pushing for Health Canada to make the MMAR
constitutional and you know the Hitzig Court said that as soon as
it's constitutional again, the prohibition is valid again. So
tell me again what possible use it is to work on a flawed MMAR
when it us that flaw that's making the prohibition invalid?

MM: and his successful argument will be one more nail in that
coffin.

JCT: Parker put the nail in the coffin. We're trying to get the
funeral over with. We don't need more reasons it's
unconstitutional, Parker and Krieger provide that.

>> Why don't you ask him what's wrong with having the
prohibition invalid while the MMAR is invalid? Why fix the MMAR
when its flaws make the prohibition void?
MM: Nothing's wrong with it - and I'm sure that Russell's answer
would be the same - but you can't crush a police state with one
gun, and you can't stop a legal juggernaut with one argument.

JCT: Alan Young said he derailed Parker's case because he thought
Parker's 2 Aces weren't enough. And he was wrong. How many
arguments do you think it takes if one won't do? Three? Six?
Anyway, fixing the MMAR now that it has been declared invalid
making the prohibition invalid is sabotage. I've got no other
word for it. Another a la Young resurrection attempt.

MM: I'm *not* saying you're on the wrong track, John... yours *is*
the ultimate argument for Canadians' freedom to choose - but it's
been plain for years now that the Feds are not playing this game
by the short rules: they're going to obstruct every single
argument with bulshit untill they run *out* of bullshit... and
every single argument that might *prevent* them continuing with
this tactic has to be considered a good one until it fails.

JCT: And I've finally got them with their own words. Your
pessimism is irrelevant. Quitters don't win and winners don't
quit. We've got a new Sfetkopoulos Ace in our hand and we're
going for the pot no matter how many cards less-trained
strategists think that the Great Canadian Gambler needs more than
one Ace to win the pot against the juggernaut's cards. The bigger
they are, the harder they fall.

JCT: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/MedPot/message/1000 is
my analysis of the the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in the
Windsor JP technicality.

>[14] The Parker order by its terms took effect one year after
its pronouncement. That order was never varied. After the MMAR
came into effect, the question was not whether the enactment of
the MMAR had any effect on the Parker order, but rather whether
the prohibition against possession of marihuana in s.4 of the
CDSA, as modified by the MMAR, was constitutional. If it was, the
offence of possession was in force. Paired with the suspension of
the declaration in Parker, this would have the effect of keeping
the possession prohibition in force continually. If the MMAR did
not create a constitutionally valid exception, as we have held,
then according to the ratio in Parker, the possession prohibition
in s.4 was unconstitutional and of no force and effect. The
determination of whether there was an offence of possession of
marihuana in force as of April 2002 depended not on the terms of
the Parker order but on whether the Government had cured the
constitutional defect identified in Parker. It had not.

JCT: If the MMAR did not create a constitutionally valid
exception, as Sfetkopouls held, then according to the ratio in
Parker, the possession prohibition in s.4 was unconstitutional
and of no force and effect. The determination of whether there
was an offence of possession of marihuana in force after Dec 3
2003 depended not on the terms of the Parker order but on whether
the Government had cured the constitutional defect identified in
Parker. It had not.

>[29] The Superior Court judge treated this court's order in
Parker as the equivalent of a Parliamentary repeal of s.4 of the
CDSA as it applied to marihuana.

JCT: Ontario Justices PHillips, Rogin and BC Justice Chen all
explained that they were treating the prohibition has repealed
pursuant to S.2(2) of the Interpretation Act that says that laws
that have been struck down by the courts are to be deemed
repealed.

>We do not share that interpretation.

JCT: They do not agree with the interpretation of what striking
down a law means!!! They do not agree with judge deeming struck-
down laws as repealed. These three can tell Canada's judge to
ignore Parliament's Interpretation Act. Worse than that, all
judge have!!!

>For convenience, we repeat the salient words of the order:
The remedy granted by the trial judge is varied by declaring the
marihuana prohibition in s. 4 of the Control Drug and Substances
Act to be invalid.

[30] The order was directed at the marihuana prohibition in s.4
as it existed when Parker was decided. The authority to make the
declaration emanates from s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982,
which provides that:
[A]ny law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the
Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force
or effect.
[31] The court in Parker, supra, declared that the marihuana
prohibition in s. 4 was inconsistent with the Charter and
consequently of no force or effect absent an adequate medical
exemption.

JCT: No, the court in Parker declared that the marihuana
prohibition in s.4 was inconsistent with the Charter and
consequently invalid.

"absent an adequate medical exemption" was added to the Parker
Court's Order by the Hitzig Court. The Parker Court never said it
was an on-off switch. They just said it was off. the Hitzig Court
added the on switch to the true ruling. Then they used their own
newly-installed switch to turn the prohibition back on. So they
said.

>In making the declaration, the court did not and could not
repeal or otherwise alter the terms of the statute.

JCT: Remember, these are Court of Appeal judges, at the top of
Ontario's greasy totem pole. They know that when a law is struck
down, the Interpretation Act doesn't mean it should be deemed
repealed since their new on-switch added to the Parker off-
switch.

>The court could only declare the constitutionally offensive part
of the legislation to be of no force or effect.

JCT: They declared "Section 4 to be invalid." That's all. So
that's what they did, declare the constitutionally offensive
prohibition on marijuana possession in S.4 to be of no force and
effect." But they didn't add an "absent a valid on-switch."

Just like the Torture judges changing meanings around. If they
can get the Torture Judges, maybe we'll someday get the Genocide
by denial of medicine judges.

>[32] By bringing forward the MMAR, the Government altered the
scope of the possession prohibition in s.4 of the CDSA. After the
MMAR came into force, the question therefore became whether the
prohibition against possession of marihuana as modified by the
MMAR was constitutional. If it was, then the possession
prohibition was in force. If the MMAR did not solve the
constitutional problem, then the possession prohibition, even as
modified by the MMAR, was of no force or effect.

JCT: So it's official, believers in Alan Young's resurrection
switch have to admit that the "stupid gimme" of attaching an
already-declared-unconstitutional condition back again means the
MMAR did not solve the constitutional problem, then the
possession prohibition, even as modified by the MMAR, was of no
force or effect. MMAR

>[33]     There was no need to amend or re-enact s. 4 of the CDSA
to address the constitutional problem in Parker. That problem
arose from the absence of a constitutionally adequate medical
exemption.

As the order in Sfetkopoulos demonstrates, the prohibition
against possession of marihuana in s. 4 is not in force when
there is not a constitutionally acceptable medical exemption in
force.

http://forums.cannabisculture.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1527\
164
is Marc Emery's Cannabis Culture forum on the Sfetkopoulos
victory. Of course, Marc "the Narc's" crowd push the government
line about this being about the problem of growers being fixed
without considering the big picture.

First, the big picture: The Hitzig Court of Appeal ruled that
when the MMAR was flawed by 4 defects, the possession prohibition
was invalid between Terry Parker Day Aug 1 2001 and Alan Young
Day Oct 7 2003 when he says his Hitzig case resurrected the
prohibition that the Parker case had invalidated.

Now the Sfetkopoulos case ruled that the MMAR was flawed by 1
defect so the possession prohibition is invalid since it was re-
installed on "stupid gimme" day!

Russell Barth asks: "I would like to know how soon the government
plans to comply with this ruling?"

The longer they do not comply, the longer no one can argue that
the prohibition has been resurrected a la Professeur Saboteur. So
I don't want them to fix the exemption. I prefer having the
prohibition invalid.

Once they do comply with his demand, Russell Barth will be able
to argue that with a now-working MMAR, the possession prohibition
is now back alive, the same resurrection stunt Alan Young pulled,
fixing the MMAR and unrepealing the dead law alive.

Of course, since the MMAR was flawed and the prohibition invalid
in 2001, we always found it suspect that Alan Young would
concentrate on fixing the 4-flawed MMAR for the sick rather than
using its flaws to get the prohibition declared dead for the sick
and the healthy.

Now here, in 2009, with the MMAR found to be flawed once again
and the prohibition once again turned off, I find it again
suspect that Russell Barth is intent on fixing the 1-flawed MMAR
for the sick rather than using its flaw to get the prohibition
declared dead for the sick and the healthy.

Russell Barth is trying to score the same Judas Goat resurrection
coup as the Professeur Saboteur. Yet Ganja Gilligan Young is
still lionized despite oopsing the resurrection of the
prohibition in Parker in 2003. I guess Russell expects to be also
lionized when he can say he oopsed the resurrection of the
prohibition in Sfetkopoulos in 2009.

Deja vu? We'll see.