TURMEL: Cannabis Vulture Prince of Rot Narc Emery says no REPEAL

From: John Turmel (bc726_at_FreeNet.Carleton.CA)
Date: 08/18/04 

Date: 18 Aug 2004 01:47:56 GMT

JCT: In my recent post titled "Cannabis Vulture Prince of
Rot Narc Emery censors REPEAL," I accused Marc Emery of
censoring Paul Coulbeck's article which claimed that the
prohibition of marijuana is still repealed when I have now
found out they just moved it over to another list at their
site at:
http://www.cannabisculture.com/forums/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=wwwactive
http://www.cannabisculture.com/forums/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=910016&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

I had asked what other reason Narc Emery could have for
censoring a story about cannabis prohibition being repealed
other than he's not happy about it being repealed? Why would
the Prince of Rot be unhappy finding out that the
prohibitions have been repealed? I thought it backed up even
more my allegations that his squelching the Parker Pitt
ruling and the Paquette Exemption Extension ruling meant he
was a narc mole planted in the movement by the
Prohibitionists. Helping Alan Young push the government line
is no reference either.

In response to Paul's article, we can read:

>From: MRNICEakaBRIAN journeyman
>Subject: Re: Cannabis Prohibition is REPEALED
>Date: Fri Jul 30 2004 07:30 PM
Quote:
four: Only Parliament can create a law. Repealed Laws cannot
be resurrected by a court. Any new law is
RECRIMINALIZATION. Cannabis is legal for all, RIGHT NOW

This is what i have been saying now we have to get them to
admit this in court with media coverage following this
decision well i will do my best in court to get us the proof
we need. B 

---
>Marc Scott Emery Prince of Pot 
>Re: Cannabis Prohibition is REPEALED  [Re: Bro. Paul] 
>Date: Fri Jul 30 2004 09:36 PM
ME: Cannabis is NOT legal. No court will confirm marijuana 
is legal. You can say courts cannot resurrect dead laws, and 
I would have to say I always thought that was true, but our 
leave to appeal the OCA decision in Hitzig to the Supreme 
Court was turned down, so Prohibition is legally recognized 
by all courts at this time. 
JCT: Wow. What a load of Rot from the Prince of Pot. Again:
ME: Cannabis is NOT legal. 
JCT: He sure seems to hope so or his seeds business goes 
belly-up. 
ME: No court will confirm marijuana is legal. 
JCT: Who cares? The court confirmed that the prohibition 
wasn't legal and Parliament hasn't done anything to change 
that. He's saying that marijuana is still illegal because no 
court will confirm it is legal. But once a court, Edwards or 
Sheppard, does confirm it, it'll mean that we were right all 
along about it being legal and he was wrong all along it 
needing to be confirmed by a court first. The issue is 
whether it's legal or not. The issue is not whether the 
show-courts have confirmed it or not. And, being from B.C., 
why is he so quick to accept that Ontario judges can make it 
illegal for him way over in B.C.? Seems he's pretty happy 
about Alan Young's Hitzig decision resurrecting the law. 
ME: You can say courts cannot resurrect dead laws, 
JCT: What does he mean by "you can say it." As if it's only 
our say so that we're depending on? As if there isn't a 
whole history backing up Parliament legislating and the 
courts repealing. He says it's only our say-so? That it's 
only the say-so of we non-experts that only Parliament can 
resurrect dead laws. 
ME: and I would have to say I always thought that was true, 
JCT: So the Prince of Pot accepts that the Alan Young's 
Hitzig court resurrected the prohibition even though he 
always taught that only Parliament could do it was true. How 
easily he has accepts what the untrue. How quickly the 
Cannabis Vulture rolls over and plays dead. What a champ. 
Like I said, he isn't happy about prohibition being 
repealed. 
ME: but our leave to appeal the OCA decision in Hitzig to 
the Supreme Court was turned down, so Prohibition is legally 
recognized by all courts at this time. 
JCT: But Paul Burstein's application financed by Emery for 
leave to appeal the Lederman appeal ruling did not challenge 
the resurrection of the law, mine and Terry's will be doing 
that. I published the Hitzig leave application and we all 
saw that it challenged the lack of supervision of the 
federal ministry by the provincial courts which got laughed 
out of the room. Now Emery's trying to say that they 
appealled against the resurrection order which was rejected 
by the Supreme Court too. The liar. The Supreme Court did 
not validate the power to resurrect repealed statutes. But 
that's the final spin coming out of the Alan Young camp of 
narc moles and saboteurs. 
>AlisonMyrden journeyman 
>Re: Cannabis Prohibition is REPEALED [Re: Marc Scott Emery] 
>Date: Tue Aug 03 2004 09:30 PM
JCT: Oh good. More from the Alan Young camp.
AM: Marc, thanx so much for your honest and forthright 
answer to the question of legality of Cannabis in Canada.
JCT: The former prison guard agrees with the Prince of Rot's 
honest and forthright answer to the question of legality of 
Cannabis in Canada. Which just happens to be wrong. 
ME: I do not speak openly about this as people hear 
different things, are confused easily, argue consistently 
and I don't have the energy to play that game.... 
JCT: She doesn't 
have the energy to argue and speak openly about whether only 
Parliament can legislate new law so she thinks it's better 
to just accept that it's illegal again? Bull, she ran for 
Parliament and didn't use the opportunity to speak openly 
about it when it was her responsibility to the movement to 
so speak about it.  
AM: I - like you - just keep telling people there IS a Law 
according to what Alan and I talk about. 
JCT: There is a law according to Alan Young's Hitzig case. 
That's the story she, like Narc Emery, and all the other narc 
moles are peddling, that there IS a law. With our greatest 
medpot spokespeople arguing with the government that there 
is a law, it sure makes it tough on us who argue there is no 
law. 
AM: Thank you openly for everything you have ever done for 
us.... 
JCT: Sure, her and her prohibitionist friends are thankful 
for Narc Emery's pushing the same prohibitionist line that 
the law's still alive in his magazine but real Abolitionists 
sure aren't thankful.
Am: Keep up the great work doll and see you on the 21st 
sometime... I ADORE you...  Love and a Squish, Alison xx 
JCT: Yuck. She's so bent she makes me want to up-chuck. 
>From: houseboy enthusiast 
>Subject: Re: Cannabis Prohibition is REPEALED  [Re: Emery] 
>Date: Fri Aug 06 2004 06:36 AM
H: Hi Marc and all,while I understand your reasoning for the 
statement I would like to expand on it. I will keep to the 
Hitzig ruling. 
H: I believe the reason the appeal was turned down is that 
the group had "won" what arguements they placed before the 
court, namely supply(flin flon). 
As to the ruling bringing back the "law" by making the MMAR 
constitutional with certain defects remedied. The goverment 
has complied by only changing certain sections, I believe 
there were 5 in total, the goverment has only changed 3 in 
the latest gazette. 
JCT: They don't get it. The Court said that they were 
striking out the objectionable parts from the MMAR to make 
it workable. That's the reason they say the MMAR was 
completely workable on the very day of the operation where 
they fixed the MMAR, Oct 7 2003. Health Canada didn't have 
to do anything to comply once the Court had cut out the bad 
parts and left them with the rest of the MMAR in working 
order. (I'm only talking about working order, not that it 
was operational after it was too late). 
H: The short of it is, even if the goverment enacts the 
changes in the future as intended now, they will still have 
not made MMAR constitutional because of the remaining 2 they 
refuse to enact. 
JCT: The reality of the situation is that Health Canada has 
announced that they are going to put the objectionable part 
that had been cut out by the court back into the MMAR. But 
they haven't actually done it yet. They've only announced 
that they intend to put the cancer back in. And the Young 
camp are blowing this lob from Health Canada all out of 
proportion.  
H: Without all the changes, it remains unconstitutional in 
the eyes of the Ontario Appeal court. 
JCT: The Ontario Court of appeal made the changes. How can 
he be expecting Health Canada to make changes to comply, 
they can only make changes to refuse to comply. So, assuming 
that at some point, they actually pass a new MMAR with the 
struck down portion back up, the MMAR will again then become 
unconstitutional according to the Young camp. But until they 
enact the bad part again, this Health Canada lob is all 
smoke and mirrors. 
Arguing that Health Canada screwed up after accepting that 
the courts can resurrect repealed laws is just another cover 
story for the power argument that only Parliament can 
resurrect repealed laws. Keep in mind that Bruce Ryan keeps 
wanting to raise the not-yet-enacted red herring of Health 
Canada's defiance to Hitzig rather than our already proven 
failure of Parliament to resurrect the Parker and Krieger 
repeals of possession s.4(1) and cultivation s.7(1).  
H: The crown also is aware of anyone that can present this 
to a judge in a credible way will eventually win. 
JCT: But you must accept the premise that Alan Young's 
Hitzig case resurrected the prohibition first. Then it can 
be fought over again. 
H: It could take years, but would prove out. 
JCT: Right. My way, it's over now. Young's way, it could 
take years more of legal battles. 
H: The crown is withdrawing and staying charges all the 
time, even after the Oct/2003 date. 
JCT: But on the grounds that Parliament was jokered out of 
introducing the new legislation after Parker and Krieger 
repealed possession and cultivation, not because Health 
Canada arguably screwed up. I'd bet Health Canada screwed up 
just to give Alan Young something weak to get back in the 
game and cause interference again. Fortunately, I'm moving 
into the Supreme Court and he can't catch up after 
prematurely blowing their chance. Much like the weak J.P. 
technicality suddenly appearing on the scene to take credit 
for the repeal, so too, this weak Health Canada screw-up 
suddenly appearing on the scene to take credit for the 
continued repeal seems like another set-up for prohibition.  
H: In my personal opinion,it has been legal to posess for 
everyone since Aug 1/2001 and remains so. 
JCT: At least he got the Terry Parker Day right. Something I 
made sure to point out to the Court of Appeal and which they 
still nevertheless got wrong. 
H: Any questions/comments welcomed. Taker easy John 
JCT: And of course, this is the end of the stream and 
probably the end of the discussion. Even without the power 
argument that Parliament enacts up while courts strike down, 
it still has to put a plug in Narc Emery's mouth. 
Even going with Emery's acceptance of the un-repeal of the 
law by the court, this guy's pointing out in his own wrong 
say that the Health Canada responses causes them problems. 
The Prince of Rot won't even be able to handle the weakest 
argument possible even accepting his own premise. 
Har har har har. 
--
Abolitionist Slave Leader John C."The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
for UNILETS interest-free time-based currency in U.N. resolution C6
to Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm 
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel 519-753-0645 USENET: can.politics

Relevant Pages