TURMEL: Edward Decision Could End Prohibition Officially

From: John Turmel (bc726_at_FreeNet.Carleton.CA)
Date: 09/14/04 

Date: 14 Sep 2004 03:44:40 GMT

JCT: Let's face it. Judge Edward is probably between a rock
and the hardest place imaginable. The doctrine of stare
decisis says that he should follow the rulings from above.
But it doesn't say always. The Nuremberg trials say that he
should follow only righteous rulings from above. I was just
following bad orders is no excuse. If it's a bad order from
above, a judge always has the responsibility to treat the
accused justly and then take the consequences of an appeal.

Of course, most such higher judicial errors are corrected
when appealed to the Supreme Court. It's rare that the
opposition to the bad ruling takes place back below like it
can here.

Of course, my two upcoming Supreme Court applications for
leave in the Lederman appeal against the Resurrection Order
and the Aitken appeal against the Remember Order (no need to
reprint the legislation, courts will remember which sections
no longer apply even if they already forgot) are just
waiting to be triggered at my discretion.
Imagine that Alan Young and Paul Burstein had their chance
to challenge the Resurrection Order in their leave to appeal
and did not object to the resurrection. They're now out of
the game. No one else is poised to move these nationally
important medpot issues into the highest court but little
old non-lawyer John Turmel. Har har. And it looks like we're
in the end game. I don't know when some judge is going to
refuse to obey the Resurrection Order or even the Remember
Order but it has to happen. If not in Ontario, more likely
in other provinces.

Of course, while none of Canada's lawyers have noticed that
the Ontario Court of Appeal has no power to re-create a
penal sanction and they keep pleading their clients guilty,
I wonder if there isn't some sort of recourse to a charge of
incompetence. Consider the hundred thousand people who
pleaded guilty under the guidance of lawyers while the law
was dead. Should the lawyers keep that money or were they so
incompetent that it should be returned to their clients? Big
issues when you deal with big screw-ups.
 
And how about when we find that the law is still dead?
Shouldn't the lawyers be giving back all the money they've
taken for pleading their clients guilty to a law that did
not exist since last October too? That could be one reason
why we see no lawyers arguing that the law is still dead.
Still, you have to wonder at every single one of them being
wrong and The Engineer always being right.

Much like all the economists in the world are wrong about
inflation being the inverse function of the interest rate
when I've proven it's a direct function. All economists
being wrong and one engineer being right. All lawyers being
wrong and one engineer being right. Neat that it's the same
engineer too, putting down both oppressor professions.

Excuse me if I feel like crowing on the eve of what could
prove to be the biggest win of my career. They had to drop
4000 simple possession charges last December because of our
appeal and now they're going to have to drop every single
charge left since then because of tomorrow's win. Remember,
if Judge Edward rules logically, then The Engineer will
sustain that logic in the courts above. But if he rules
cowardly, then The Engineer will chop him up in the courts
above.

I think that is a sufficiently scary proposition to
ensure most sensible people will want to do right. If the
Government can be freaked out of re-introducing the
legislation to Parliament because of Turmel at the door, if
Jean Chretien can be convinced to prorogue Parliament
without pushing through re-criminalization because he didn't
want to have bad-mouthing Turmel dogging his door for the
rest of his retired life, if Paul Martin can be convinced to
call an election before re-criminalizing, I think there's
the good chance that if the junk-yard dog wins the bone, no
one's going to try to take it away from me again.

There aren't many judges who get the chance to over-rule 3
higher judges in 2 major issues and be sustained at the top.
Judge Edward has the chance to make history with a blow for
righteousness and freedom.

Or he gets to be my example of the Nazi Judges below
obeying bad orders to prosecute harmless citizens.

Quite the cross-roads in his career. A hero or a Nazi. A guy
who'll defend his decision with logic or a guy who'll defend
it with the Nuremberg "I vas just following orders" defence.

Final point, Judge Edward has it in his power to end the
genocide of the epileptics. Just like I told Justice Doherty
that he had the power to inform epileptics that it was legal
and advisable to obtain their anti-seizure medicine now, he
should be able to do the same.

So Judge Edward if facing his judgment day too. He has the
power to end the conveyor belt of death, 4 epileptics a day,
and if he doesn't, all the regular genocidal allegations
I've made against Doherty, Goudge, and Simmons JJ.A. for
causing 1,500 epileptics to die for nothing will also apply.

Anyone with the power to end the genocide who does not is
responsible for the number who die during the delay until it
is ended.

Maybe I should have told Judge Edward right in the written
representations as forcefully as I told Justice Doherty in
person that I was holding him responsible for all the extra
deaths due to the delay in legalizing the world's Guinness
Record safest herbal medication. Ah well, let's hope Judge
Edward realizes that legalizing good medicine saves lives.

Like I said, a hero or a genocidal villain is his choice. We
know the higher court chose to be genocidal villains but
I've provided a way for a non-murderer judge to disobey the
murderous judges who re-prohibited anti-epilepsy medicine
from above.

Talk about exquisite tension on the eve of a big one! The
Edward Decision Could End Prohibition Officially 

--
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