TURMEL: Alan Young's hypocrisy in two Pitt letters

From: John Turmel (bc726_at_FreeNet.Carleton.CA)
Date: 09/18/04 

Date: 18 Sep 2004 12:16:40 GMT

JCT: Sometimes, I find it therapeutic to hurt someone on the
other team just because it gives me something to do. People
have asked if Alan Young and Marc The Narc Emery have ever
responded. I think the fact search engines can't find any
responses speaks for itself. So I want to spend a little
time on Alan Young's own words before and after the Pitt
Superior Court ruling that the MMAR had not complied with
Parker which came down before his Alan Young's Lederman
Superior Court ruling that the MMAR had not complied with
Parker.

Remember that it was only once Justice Pitt had granted
Terry Parker an extension on his criminal jurisdiction
constitutional exemption to prosecution for possessing
marijuana by the Ontario Court of Appeal that the Crown had
to call in Alan Young to help trip Terry up. Crown Lara
Speirs introduced Alan Young as a friend of the court to
speak for Terry on her motion to set aside the Pitt decision
in civil court and once Alan Young had agreed with the
Crown that it should be done and that the civil court can
set aside criminal court remedies, Justice Chapnik, duh,
granted the unanimous ruling from both sides setting aside
the Pitt remedy without Parker having said another word
after "okay" to the Crown request that Alan Young be allowed
to say a few words on his behalf. How she slipped Alan Young
in to shiv Parker's case was really quite a neat trick to
behold from my vantage point at the back of the room. My
colorful report that evening on how it upset my stomach
prompted Alan to put his foot in his mouth. Both, actually.

So Alan Young wrote two letters relating to the Pitt
decision, the first before we found out he was the
Professeur Saboteur who was going to help the Crown finesse
Parker out of his Superior Court declaration that the
Government had failed to comply; and the other letter when
he admitted it to the Marijuana Party of Canada convention
in Montreal three days later that he had helped the Crown
pretend a civil judge can set aside a criminal remedy by
another judge of equal rank because, as Alan Young wrote,
this Superior Court decision condemning MMAR compliance
wasn't worth the paper it was written on unlike his upcoming
Superior Court decision condemning the same MMAR compliance
too.

For effect, I'm going to re-publish his letters backwards so
you get to hear what he says of the Pitt decision before he
asks me to take over Parker's Pitt decision fight before
Chapnik in his first letter.

>Posted by sonnyboy (member) on 04/20/02 05:21 PM
>Subject: Alan Young's Statement To Our Cannabis Movement
and The Sick
>Sent To: cmap@mapinc.org Cc: maptalk@mapinc.org
 
I am forced to waste my time responding to John Turmel's
recent rant concerning my involvement in the Parker case.
Turmel has served a valuable purpose in keeping on top of
Health Canada through his numerous court cases. For this
effort I encouraged and supported Turmel. However, now he
has outlived his utility and he represents a danger to the
pot reform movement. At the outset Turmel may have had the
best intentions; however, now he is left with simple
showboating and grandstanding and this will not work to
change the law.
 
I attended at the recent Parker hearing for two purposes.
First, to ensure that Turmel's motion to invalidate the law
would not proceeed. His motion will be dismissed by any
judge who hears it because the record is incomplete and
Turmel does not understand the legal argument. The decision
is Parker's to make. We will be successful in invalidating
the marijuana possession offence and invalidating the
horrible regulatory regime by year's end. Turmel's attempt
to rush this important application will backfire and he will
set back the movement by many years.

I also attended the hearing to ensure that Parker would walk
out of court with protection from prosecution. The "Pitt"
order which Turmel is so excited about is not worth the
paper it is written on and any judge would set it aside
without hesitation. The judge we appeared in front of was
prepared to set aside the order and I convinced her to
replace Pitt's order with a constitutional exemption which
would protect Parker throughout the time it takes to bring a
proper application to strike down the law. The judge sent us
out of court to draft the terms of the constitutional
exemption but Turmel convinced Parker not to play ball. He
gave Parker the worst possible advice and look what
happened. Two days later the judge rescinded the Pitt order
and refused to grant Parker the exemption I had arranged.

She was so put off by Turmel that she ended up screwing
Parker. In fact, it was Turmel who screwed Parker and I want
people to know that it is very dangerous to rely upon Turmel
to assist sick people with legal issues.

I want everyone to exercise extreme caution before relying
upon the circus-lawyer. As for Turmel's insulting words I
could not care less. I have worked hard on a pro bono basis
for the past five years for sick people and I am not going
to allow Turmel's words to sour my experience. As for Turmel
expressing a desire to "puke" on me, I think that his
expression demonstrates the lack of sophistication and
immaturity in his discourse. I am not impressed and I hope
that others realize that Turmel is nothing more than an
abusive paper tiger.
Alan Young

JCT: Talk about putting his foot in his mouth about why he
helped the Crown set aside Terry's Pitt Protection with its
statement that the MMAR had not complied with the Parker
decision, something he next asked Lederman J. to declare
too. Now, the letter before the stab-in-the-back:

>Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 10:33:23 -0800
>From: alan005@sympatico.ca ("Alan Young")
>Subject: Re: [MedPot] TURMEL: Parker asks Court to declare
Prohibition Dead
>To: turmel@freenet.carleton.ca

John, I will be seeing Terry Parker later today to discuss
his case. I will recommend that he become involved in a
fresh application involving a number of other exemptees and
a few doctors. I've been working on this application for
awhile now as I can see how vulnerable the law is. I really
don't have the patience or spirit for legal bull*** so I am
training two former students to take over my pot work. So
I've had these young lawyers start working on a fresh
application to the Superior Court of Justice (re:
invalidation of possession offence as per Parker) and I
would like Terry to join.

As for the matter before Pitt J., if you like I can have the
two young lawyers attend to this.

JCT: Har har har har. I wonder what he meant by this?

It is best to keep this application alive and to fight for
the continuation of Terry's constitutional exemption -
perhaps, the fresh application can be put before Pitt J. (I
don't think we would be ready to file before May 1, 2002).
Anyway,we can talk about this.
 
As for the fresh application, I would really appreciate
receiving an affidavit from you for two reasons: first, to
show the work you have been doing on behalf of exemptees and
the need for this work, and second, more specifically, I do
not have any evidence about the current problem with the
need for extensions. As I understand your newsletter, some
exemptees have needed to get extensions (court-ordered?)
because of the difficulties they face in completing the
requirements under the new regulatory regime. This evidence
is gold and it would be best to get it from you as you can
provide an overview. Of course, you will be x-examined by
the Feds but I'm sure you would have fun with that. Anyway,
the two lawyers working on preparing this case are Leora
Shemesh and Joe Neuberger. Leora will be doing most of the
work and she will call you about the affidavit. Normally she
would interview you and then prepare the affidavit; however,
in light of your experience with affidavits it would be more
efficient if you could put together a draft which I will
review.
 
I will tell you more about the case in our next
correspondence. I just wanted to tell you about meeting
Terry and about needing this affidavit from you. I would
really like to have this application filed by May 1 and to
that end I have sent Leora to interview 6 exemptees and 3-4
doctors. Now I will add Terry if he is agreeable. We will
present evidence demonstrating that the new regime is
constitutionally deficient (most of the evidence has already
been collected in the Wakeford cases) and as you fully
realize, if the exempting regime is unconstitutional, then
so is the possession offence. Getting an affidavit about
your trials and tribulations should be the icing on the
cake. Thanks. We will talk soon.

JCT: What a hypocrite. He may have laughed that his Hitzig
ruling has taken away my freedom as of 9am on that Oct 7
2003 Hitzig resurrection morning but he who laughs last
laughs best. I know what's on my shoe. The man is a piece of
dog ***. People who hang out with him smell too.

Aaaaahhhh. Does that ever let me have a good night's sleep. 

--
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