TURMEL: Alan Young's lies beaten up some more

From: John Turmel (bc726_at_FreeNet.Carleton.CA)
Date: 11/29/04 

Date: 29 Nov 2004 07:22:10 GMT

>From: doug_laurie_nielsen <buds_4_life@rogers.com
>Date: Sun Nov 28, 2004 9:43am
>Subject: Re: TURMEL: From Alan Young - True or False? False.

D&L: Alan got Terry an extention instead of just leaving the
law dead.

JCT: No he didn't. He cost Terry his exemption. Terry had
protection until the government complies with the court in
Parker to protect him and Young helped the Crown have
Terry's life-time protection taken away. That's why Terry's
mad. Young cost him his constitutional exemption.

D&L: Courts strike down the law & then it should be made
public knowledge & the crowns should tell the cops to stop
busting everyone, but that hasn't happened either.

JCT: Those Crowns who knew the truth have caused mischief by
having innocent people busted under a law they know is bad.
Innocent people killed under a law they know is bad.

Of course, Young is going to say that he urged Chapnik to
give Parker an exemption after he helped take it away. Why?
Answer at the bottom.

D&L: We know a little of the story & are glad John is not
like Alan.... we wouldn't be doing all this for Alan. He met
with Terry & John the day before that case & all was set to
go... until the next day when he stabbed the knife in their
backs... he got to speak & no one else. The crown introduced
Alan to the judge & asked if he could do the talking for
all. Terry agreed thinking things were all set...this is why
we don't use a lawyer, you never get to talk once you do.
They're always running around behind your back making deals.

Alan had a good reason to let this happen, but won't say what
that was.

JCT: Alan keeps ducking the important questions and
answering things out of context and timeframe.

D&L: We've seen emails that John posted here from Alan sent
to him, acting like he wants to help.... HE DID NOT HELP!!!!
We always get told we're dwelling on the past, when we mentioned
anything at ccc. It was only 1 year ago that Alan screwed us all,
not ancient history & it's still affecting everyone. John on
the other hand is still in the courts fighting...where's
Alan? D & L

JCT: Alan helped Alison Myrden end the summer of legalisation so
she can go on a national tour to end prohibition!

>From: drgreenthumb4twenty <drgreenthumb4twenty@yahoo.com
>Date: Sun Nov 28, 2004 2:20pm
>Subject: i was wondering...

DR: Hey John is there any way for somebody to speak to a
judge in a court if you are not charged with anything? I was
just wondering if there was any way that I can get copies of
this timeline to a whole bunch of the judges so that they
are aware of the state of the law regarding cannabis
possession and cultivation.

JCT: It's sad that the whole judiciary haven't done their
homework. It's sadder that defence lawyers haven't done
theirs. All the judges were wrong about Terry Parker Day and
found many innocent people guilty they never corrected. All
the lawyers were wrong. Sure makes the one guy who was right
feel real good about it. And it's happening again with
POLCOA.

DR: Then they would be required to let defendants who are
representing themselves aware of this problem the crown has
with the non-existing charges?

JCT: Actually, it's the Crown Attorneys' job and they're
pretending it's still alive. Maybe someday we'll have the
chance to put some government lawyers in jail for their
mischief and genocide.

DR: Aside from that, do you think I would get hassled by the
police if I stood in front of the court house in winnipeg
before sessions and hollered "free pot defence kits!" to try
and fish out those going in on pot charges?

JCT: No you wouldn't get hassled but you'd single-handedly
start a revolution in your province they wouldn't be able to
thwart.

DR: Do I have to identify myself to any cops or carry
identification if they are not charging me with anything?

JCT: Probably not but who cares. You're hitting them with a
legal move they fear. No one's going to bother you. Get out
and do it and see.

>From: doug_laurie_nielsen <buds_4_life@rogers.com
>Date: Sun Nov 28, 2004 3:04pm
>Subject: Re: TURMEL: From Alan Young - True or False? False

D&L: We got the boot too

JCT: Ron drew the slimy Prefessewer out of his hole:

D&L: We can't let Ron & Ann take all the blame,

JCT: or credit

D&L: we got kicked out of ccc too :o) for stating the
truth.. doesn't look good for them.

JCT: Credit, for sure.

D&L: Here's a compilation of some posts we put on the ccc.
They are only our posts that we put in, no replies so don't
have a bird Deb.. I know your reading. lol if Ron & Ann will
allow their posts to be put here we have them ALL too :o) D
& L

From: "doug_laurie_nielsen" <buds_4_life@r...>
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 11:05 PM
Subject: Re: [CCC] what the hell's going on with Alan Young

How is prohibition still there after that case?... Did
parliament legislate a new law?..NO..Or...did what a Judge
opinioned, somehow become misconstrued as him being able
to resurrect a dead law?
>From what we've researched Parliament didn't make a new law
since 2001 when everyone admits it died. Judges don't have
the power to create laws, only parliament & the judge in
this particular case refused to sign the order saying he
resurrected the law.
So therefore it was just an opinion & the law is still
dead....but you are right, somehow we still have to fight to
prove they didn't fix the law that day...That is sad. D & L

>From: doug_laurie_nielsen <buds_4_life@rogers.com
>Date: Fri Nov 5, 2004 3:38pm
>Subject: Re: [CCC] what the hell's going on with Alan Young

You're right, they will still bust you for having it, but
that doesn't make them right. It's up to the C.A. office to
tell the cops to stop, but since they won't, we need to
stand up & fight.
They won't admit to the law still being dead until they
actually pass legislation again. It would cause a free for
all situation. We had a very good long talk with our
arresting officers & they are really not bad guys at all.
There are a lot of cops that just aren't educated to what's
been going on in the courts. We look at it like they are
doing what their bosses tell them to do.

JCT: Why should they be when the whole judiciary and bar are
once again all wrong and The Engineer is once again right?

>From: doug_laurie_nielsen
>Date: Sat Nov 6, 2004 0:22am
>Subject: Re: Yet Alan Young defend himself

"Hell, you people are actually sticking up for a person
who said that the law is alive and well? Go figure!!" D & L
We're all for freedom of speech.... Not only did he say the
law was alive & well, but we recall reading a certain letter
about the Pitt hearing that was posted with these opening
lines..."

"I attended at the recent Parker hearing for two purposes.
First, to ensure that Turmel's motion to invalidate the law
would not proceed...."

D&L: We didn't say these words, he did so don't get mad at
us too... It's just... that statement doesn't sound like
someone who wants to try & beat down the MJ laws & free
everyone to us, & it didn't sound like he had Terry's best
interests in mind either, if you read it all.
It seems we're all just looking for answers, but when you
ask any touchy questions you get attacked or told not to
speak...What country is this again??? D & L

>From: doug_laurie_nielsen <buds_4_life@rogers.com
>Date: Sun Nov 7, 2004 9:08am
>Subject: Re: [CCC] Canada Safety Council proposal on
cannabis and driving

We like that Marc...come to an end before Christmas...
wouldn't that be the best present ever :o) With the way that
they've been able to hide the facts through wording & media,
we were beginning to wonder if the public would ever know
the truth about the state of the law over the last few
years. In the next couple of months we should have that eye
opener in the courts & if successful no one will need to
worry about being charged :o)

>From: doug_laurie_nielsen <buds_4_life@rogers.com
>Date: Sun Nov 7, 2004 0:01am
>Subject: Re: [CCC] Canada Safety Council proposal on
cannabis and driving

D&L: Only Parliament can Legislate a new law. Once it was
declared dead no judge could bring it back. So why does
everyone think it came back to life?... The media is what
everyone listens to first... If you have a person that has
high standing in the public eye walk out of the court room
& say "The free rein on marijuana has come to an end as of
today", well then people will believe that person.

JCT: That was Alan Young's role on the day the Hitzig-Myrden
decision ended the period of legalisation.

D&L: Especially if that person was supposed to be fighting
for the publics constitutional rights... It's sad to think
of all the people out there getting busted that don't know
that their rights are being violated & that they can fight
back & really make a difference... D & L

From: doug_laurie_nielsen <buds_4_life@rogers.com
Date: Sun Nov 7, 2004 10:34pm
Subject: Re: A question of Constitutionality or not

J. Doherty signed a judgment, but didn't include the part where
he resurrected the law. When he was asked to put that in the
order last month, he refused, but the damage was already
done when his opinion was announced as law by Alan in Oct.
2003.

Meanwhile people like us are being prosecuted under a law
that was really just an opinion... A court ruling ultimately
bases down to what is in the order... so... no resurrected
law in the order... means no law.

This & parliament being the only ones to create laws are
basic fundamentals of law & we learned that in high
school... so we're sure Alan knew that when he declared the
law was fixed....(no pun intended..lol)

JCT: Is it possible that a York University Osgoode Hall Law
School Professor doesn't know this?

D&L: So that's a VERY good & legitimate question Ron that
deserves an answer. Not only did he agree with the ruling,
but he was the first one to spread the news...why?

JCT: He actually boasted how the period of legalisation was
ended at "9am this morning" by his Hitzig-Myrden ruling
resurrecting the law. Young's the one who broadcast that the
law had been resurrected and if a law professor is telling
everyone that the court resurrected it, who is going to
doubt it?

D&L: Then there's Marc Emery pleading guilty to trafficking
for 4 joints & saying he's got a not guilty defence, but
never presents it....what is really going on with these
activists? D & L

JCT: Actually, he never said he had a defence to present.
That's what belied his statement that he was expecting his
lawyer to present a defence. When asked "what defence?" he
didn't know. Because he wasn't expecting his lawyer to plead
him not guilty. He lied. Again.

>From: doug_laurie_nielsen <buds_4_life@rogers.com
>Date: Sun Nov 7, 2004 10:
>Subject: Re: [CCC] A question of Constitutionality or not

D&L: We're sure there's more than just a few that would like
the answers, so posting it would be appreciated D & L
** Since Alan addresses us personally in his reply & you all
have taken the time to read this far, we feel it should be
posted in it's entirety for all to read. He made several
other posts AFTER this one, but we could only watch &
couldn't post. They made sure we couldn't dispute the crap
he was spouting. Kenn (and others)

AY: As you have indicated that you find the questions from
Doug and Laurie interesting and reasonable, I will answer
quickly. I hesitate to respond to demands that I explain
myself especially from people who do not know me or do not
my work.

JCT: It's not his past work we want to hear about, it's
about his recent sabotage. Notice it's the same story we
heard out of Emery's camp. Why lie about confessing and
pleading guilty and he tells us about all the good things
he's done for the movement to balance his betrayal.

AY: However, you did not demand a response in the accusatory
way that Ron and Anne, Doug and Laurie have done, so I feel
obliged to provide you with some thoughts.

First, I am really tired of responding to the ancient Turmel
rant about me railroading Terry Parker's motion to
invalidate in 2002. I worked closely with Terry and his
lawyer on his famous case and have helped Parker with many
other legal problems. When Terry teamed up with Turmel, they
launched a case to invalidate the possession offence in
2002, without any credible supporting material.

JCT: I've already pointed out that helping Parker before
doesn't explain stabbing him in the back now.

AY: I intervened to delay his case

JCT: Yes, he helped the Crown delay his case to declare the
law dead so Alan Young could launch his case to get the law
declared alive again.

AY: until the evidentiary record in Hitzig had been
completed (a few months) so that Terry's case would also
have some compelling evidence to use to support his claim
(beyond Turmel's bizarre and alienating argument about
genocide).

JCT: But Terry had already won without all the evidentiary
record Alan thought he needed to win. Terry won with only
the two Aces I provided, proof his exemption expired and
proof his doctor had been warned not to sign by the OMA.

AY: Everyone got their day in court and nothing was lost.

JCT: Terry lost his exemption and nothing was lost by
Young's underhanded intervention to delay our case to
declare the law dead. He succeeded and everyone busted in
those years should take the time to thank Young for his
efforts.

AY: Now on to more important questions. When I was in the
Ontario Court of Appeal to argue Clay, we all agreed to
combine Terry's case with the Clay case. An odd thing
happened. The medical issue got intertwined with the
recreational issue (this had not been raised by any of the
lawyers) and we obtained a new avenue to challenge the
marijuana prohibition. That is, the ruling that the
possession offence would be invalid if no meaningful medical
program had been established within a year.

JCT: "we obtained?" Young's claiming credit for Aaron
Harnett's case too?

AY: In actuality, a medical program was established in 1999
(governed by the Interim Guidance Document) as a result of
litigation commenced by Jim Wakeford and I in 1998. Oddly,
the initial 1999 program worked better than the MMAR, which
was the government's response to the Parker case.

JCT: Is he going to list all the good things he's done in
the war to end prohibition to balance his bringing it back
to life?

AY: In any event, under the old program (and under the
original MMAR) there were no provisions for legal access, so
Wakeford instructed me to bring another case about supply
and access. (One of the people demanding a response from me
suggested that I had said negative things about Wakeford - I
am offended by this - Wakeford is an unsung hero of this
movement and I admire him - he suffered greatly to put
medical marijuana on the map in Canada.)

Wakeford's case sought access from NIDA, GW PHARMA, compassion
clubs and any other source which the government was willing
to authorize. Failing court ordered supply, we were seeking
invalidation of the CDSA. We lost in court but Alan Rock
decided that he would create a domestic source of medicinal
marijuana to answer Jim's demands. Thus the birth of PPS.

JCT: Wrong-Way Young was thrown out of provincial court for
being in the wrong court. Federal court only deals with the
Feds, a lesson this law professor never seems to have
learned considering his Hitzig application against Health
Canada was also against the feds.

AY: While all this was going on, the MMAR came into force
and it was clear that it was institutionally deficient. This
led to the development of the Hitzig case

JCT: Note how he jumps over helping the Crown set aside the
first ruling that the government had not complied with the
Parker ruling so he could go after a new same declaration.

AY: (Wakeford had now left Ontario) and the collection of
evidence for the first year of operation of the MMAR to show
that it did not provide compassionate access and was
obstacle-laden.

The large group of participants in the case were advised
that the objective of the case was two-fold: 1) to invalidate
the CDSA prohibition on possession (as per Parker case);

JCT: He keeps repeating it in order to claim credit for it
but he never argued it, not once. Don't consider what he
says, he's lawying. Consider what he did, revalidate the
CDSA prohibition they admit Parker had had struck down.

AY: 2) or, if this was not successful, to improve
eligibility and access to the program. We were never sure
which way the case would go, but I thought that the
government would never want to be a distributor of pot and
that their failing would lead to the invalidation of the
marijuana possession offence.

JCT: More lawying if you consider the final result.

AY: Ultimately, the Ontario Court of Appeal in October 2003
pulled another surprising move. They were not interested in
our position that the MMAR was invalid (and so the CDSA
would also be invalid). They were not interested in our
position that the government should supply quality marijuana
to those authorized to use it.

They decided (on their own initiative, as this was not
argued in court) to strike down a few provisions of the MMAR
(to improve eligibility and access), and indirectly this
saved the invalidation of the CDSA.

JCT: Two years too late? Here's the law professor telling
the world that "this saved the invalidation of the CDSA" two
years after it had died. A law professor. Har har har har.
Someone should pass this out at his Law School asking if
he's right.

AY: Now, while the case was working its way to the Court of
Appeal, the government was afraid they would lose the CDSA
on July 9, 2004 because of the lower court decision of
Lederman demanding that the supply issue be addressed by
that date. On July 8, 2004, they passed a quick regulation
allowing PPS to distribute to authorized patients.

JCT: He's saying it saved their MMAR despite the court's
invalidation?

AY: They have now made that interim policy a final policy.
In theory, the Hitzig case was a resounding success from the
medical perspective. Improving the medical program is
clearly more responsive to the claims of patients than would
be decriminalization.

JCT: But it was completely legal so there was no impediment
other than Alan misleading them into believing his helping
set Pitt's ruling that the government had not complied with
Parker somehow meant it wasn't official yet.

AY: I was always uncomfortable using the medical angle,
inadvertently triggered by the Parker case, to seek
invalidation or decriminalization.

JCT: He was always uncomfortable with the winning medical
argument. His losing recreational one in Clay bit the dust.

AY: I was always hoping that Clay/Caine/Malmo-Levine would
do the job, but all angles had to be played.

JCT: Count on loser Young betting on the loser recreational
argument and winner Turmel betting on the winning medical.

AY: So in some ways I was happy with the result in Hitzig,
only to discover once again that Health Canada has made a
bigger mess of the problem in responding to the case.

JCT: He must be upset that they re-instated the
unconstitutional conditions causing the new absence of a
constitutionally acceptable medical exemption. He can't crow
that his Hitzig-Myrden case ended the legalisation now that
Health Canada's actions have invalidated it again. I guess
the Government's going to call Alan Young to the rescue to
make marijuana prohibition valid again. Though I can't
imagine how anymore.

AY: As for the accusation that I will not publicly state
that the law is dead, this is silly.

JCT: What is silly? That the law is dead or that Young won't
state the law is dead after boasting his Hitzig-Myrden
ruling had brought it back to life?

AY: Until a high court rules the law is alive and not-so-
well, it is regrettably business as usual.

JCT: Until a high court over-rules his Hitzig-Myrden
resurrection, it is business as usual. He says
"regrettably?"

AY: I applaud everyone's efforts to convince a court that
the law is dead.

JCT: Notice he's not one of us though he said the
accusation that he will not publicly state that the law is
dead is silly.

AY: Hitzig resulted in thousands of charges being tossed
between July 31, 2001 - October 7. 2004.

JCT: JCT: Hitzig did it! Har har har har. Go see the Orders
that came out of the appeals. I asked for Terry Parker Day
even if Young is trying to steal the credit for my move. It
would have never happened if I had not appealed. How he can
claim he did it when he didn't even appeal is astounding.

Actually, Hitzig resulted in limiting the number of charges
being tossed after Oct. 7. Parker and Turmel-Paquette got
the law declared dead on Terry Parker Day, what we asked for
and Young did not, and Young's Hitzig-Myrden got the law
declared alive again. Imagine. He's the guy responsible for
ending the period of legalisation and claims to be
responsible for starting it. Turmel wrote the motion that
for the law declared dead. Young did not. It's just another
weak and easily-rebutted lie from the inept professor. He
doesn't even lie well.

AY: I think that is a pretty good subversive result.

JCT: Thank you. 4,000 people off the hook is my best result
ever.

AY: The government believes that the Ontario Court of Appeal
saved the law as of October 7, 2004

JCT: Only because the law professor told them that the court
had brought it back alive. Otherwise, how would parliament
know, they're just another bunch of mainly shysters.

AY: and I appreciate the arguments being bandied about
concerning the point that a court cannot create a new law.

JCT: He appreciates POLCOA though he announced to Canada that as
of 9am, his Hitzig case had ended the period of legalisation.
Remember him boasting about it? He appreciates my case at
the Supreme
the Supreme Court of Canada to overturn his Hitzig-Myrden
decision. Who believes him?

AY: It is not that simple in constitutional law. The Windsor
J.P. case (also argued with Hitzig in the Court of Appeal)
went nowhere, and the Court of Appeal clearly held in that
case that Parliament did not have to pass a new law in
response to Parker.

JCT: Notice how he skips out the right time-frame again.
They did not have to pass a new law while the old law was
alive. Knocking "marijuana" off the list would have been
fine without changing the legislation to keep it alive.

But once the old law had died on Terry Parker Day, it's a
different story. You have to pin the sleazy professor down
to the right time frame. I agree that dropping marijuana
from the schedule via regulations would have worked fine to
save the CDSA but the Court of Appeal did not opine on
whether the regulations saved the CDSA, they already decided
they had not.

AY: It is all very murky.

JCT: Maybe to a ill-educated low-tech math drop-out. It's
pretty clear to a guy with a Grade 17 in Applied Science.

AY: The bottom line is that we must continue to find novel
and clever ways to challenge the CDSA.

JCT: "Continue to find?" He's never found a way yet. I have.
How about the clever way that Parker had made it dead before
Young brought it back to life. Let's try that again?

AY: I do not think it will now be achieved due to failings
in the medical program - these failings will have to be
addressed directly (whether in court or through political
action).

JCT: He can't think of a way to challenge the CDSA.
Fortunately, the low-tech non-inspired professor of trial
and error isn't in on any challenge. The high-tech inspired
professor of winning mathematics is.

AY: I think it is novel to argue that the Ontario Court of
Appeal in Hitzig lacked constitutional authority to
resurrect a dead law.

JCT: Har har har har. A law professor doesn't know how
Parliament and the courts interact. Har har har har. Don't
sent your kids to York University in Toronto with an
incompetent like Young around. They might get the slimy
prof.

AY: It might work (good chance in the low court, but
unlikely as it ascends to the higher, reactionary courts).

JCT: We'll see how my two cases in the highest court fare
now that he has none going himself.

AY: So to those who have demanded a response this is the
best you will get.

JCT: Har har har har. He dug himself deeper into the hole
with a new slew of misinformation, lies, and half-truths.

AY: I can't waste more time justifying the past.

JCT: I can understand that the time spent here was a waste
of time trying to justify the past. He ducked why he had to
help the Crown set aside Pitt. His excuse that we needed his
material after we had won fell flat. He just isn't bright
enough to lie his way out of this one.

AY: I fully expected that we would have had the possession
offence invalidated due to the failings of the MMAR by the
end of 2002.

JCT: Pitt had already done that in April? Why did he help the
Crown set Pitt aside? Notice he has never explained what was
wrong with Pitt's short notice ex parte Superior Court Order
extending Parker protection. Why did Young help the Crown
take away Parker's exemption? He never answered other than
that we won without the right cards! Har har har har.

AY: This did not happen. We still have the law, a really bad
legislative proposal to change the law, and a medical
program that does not work.

JCT: If the law is still "absent a constitutionally
acceptable medical prohibition," doesn't the dolt
appreciate what that means? Doesn't the dolt understand that
his own statement confirms that, absent the exemption, the
prohibition is invalid. I guess the prof forgot what they
said in the first paragraph of his Hitzig-Myrden ruling.
 
AY; There have been many twists and turns on the road to law
reform but I think we have come a long way since cannabis
activism came back into vogue in the late 1990's.

JCT: It sure seems a long way when the lawyers never aim at
the target. Young's fought to read about pot, fought to get
a supply of pot, but never fought to legalize pot.

AY: As for your suggestion that I have abandoned my clients,
patients, friends etc. I have no idea what you are talking
about and I feel sorry that you harbour so much bitterness
about things you actually know very little about.

JCT: Actually, now that what they know about Young has been
re-inforced even more, I can understand the bitterness to
the man who brought the prohibition back to life. The narcs'
greatest hero. Our movement's greatest Judas Goat.

Once again, why did Young urge Chapnik to grant Parker his
constitutional exemption after helping the Crown take it
away?

Only one reason to set aside Pitt to get the same from
Chapnik. To get rid of Pitt's words "until the government
has complied with the court's ruling." That's why. He wasn't
trying to cost Parker his exemption, he was trying to cost
the movement's first declaration of fact that he later got
out of Lederman that the government had not complied with
the Parker court's ruling.

Why would Young go after the ruling from Lederman that the
government had not complied with Parker that he helped the
Crown set aside from Justice Pitt. 

--
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