TURMEL: Judge nixes Supreme Court of Canada in Brantford

From: John Turmel (bc726_at_FreeNet.Carleton.CA)
Date: 12/01/04 

Date: 1 Dec 2004 21:24:28 GMT

JCT: Okay, we now have a new obstacle. I had heard that in
the Marko case in Oshawa, the Attorney General for Canada
had introduced the Nielsen's "Edward decision" as precedent
that the Supreme Court of Canada in Krieger is over-ruled by
the Ontario Court of Appeal in Hitzig-Myrden. They called it
the Edward decision and from now on, so will we.

The Edward decision is that Ontario judges are bound by the
Ontario Court of Appeal in Hitzig-Myrden to keep busting
people under the newly-resurrected law and not by the
Supreme Court of Canada whose Krieger ruling rendered S.7
and S.4 of no force and effect in every province but
Ontario which is ruled by Hitzig-Myrden.

Har har har har. The Crown is really using the Edward
decision as precedent for the lower court to over-rule the
Supreme Court of Canada. Har har har har.

What's funniest is that there were two cases of people
charged with fighting, cursing, causing a disturbance. Both
after smoking marijuana! Har har har har. Joke, joke.
Actually, after getting drunk, of course. What else? Someone
should do a poll asking law enforcement officials what
percentage of disturbances are caused by alcohol, what
percentage by marijuana. Har har har.

The first case made me want to vomit and I thanked my stars
I didn't have to earn my living by being an executioner of
the hopes and dreams of the city's youth.

Chris, an 18-year-old kid with no criminal record and four
credits away from graduating high-school, is introduced by
the Duty Counsel who explains that he had bought 22 grams of
pot for him and some friends which he was splitting up in
his car when the cops caught and busted him possession for
the purpose of trafficking.

The Duty Counsel indicated that he was pleading guilty,
accepted that he had done wrong. Later, in discussion, the
lawyer said he had bought the pot for his own use and would
only be trafficking the remainder, which sounds a lot worse
than buying it for him and his friends. I wasn't impressed.

So the judged saddled him with a criminal record for
possession for the purpose of trafficking. There's one kid
who is never going to take his kid to Disneyland, will never
be a globe-trotting corporate executive, might even lose his
life after Bush's Patriot II Act makes buying marijuana a
terrorist offence and either Anne McLellan passes Canada's
own Patriot Act and brings back the death penalty or Bush
finds out Nova Scotia has oil and invades.

Sure, sure, Judge Edward was only following orders. But
every Nazi judge lose with that alibi on TV at the Nuremberg
trials for the low-level executioners of people's hopes and
dreams.

The kid's father was in the court. He was an ordinary guy
between 40-50. The judge made him come up to the front and
quizzed him about his son. He had no criminal record. Had he
caused any other kind of trouble? The dad said no, this was
the first time he'd ever caused him any trouble at all. (The
crime of having Healthy Herb, har har ha.. sorry)

Judge Edward made the kid admit that he had done wrong, that
having pot was "misbehavior." I couldn't help thinking it
was directed at me. Here's low-tech judge trial and error
telling a high-tech expert in no-error winning who's been
proven right when all the judiciary and bar were wrong once
before that using a harmless herb is misbehavior.

I only wish it had been in some kind of open forum so I
could have laughed about his ignorance of reality in his
face and had the whole crowd laugh at him with me. Nothing I
love more than winning a debate by having the audience laugh
at my opponents; and sometimes one only has to start
laughing to get others with the same sense to let go too. Of
course, the media can warp the report and say the crowd were
laughing at Turmel and not at the jokes. Too bad that in
court, unlike political debate, such contempt for an
ignorant opinion on what constitutes misbehavior would be
improper to display, but I'd love to catch him in an open
forum some day, one reason judges are advised to duck the
public lime-light if possible.
 
Here's a judge who deals with drunk and disorderly cases day
in and day out, drunk drivers day in and day out, never
stoned and disorderly cases, never stoned drivers, the only
crime of the high is choice of high. The judge and his
generation are content to be drunks if they want a change of
perception. Who can expect a generation of puking violent
alcoholics to understand that our generation happy pacific
smokers don't think it's misbehaving. Especially when the
only legal alternative, alcohol, always inevitably leads to
perdition.

Anyway, the judge could have given him a conditional or
unconditional discharge, like so many others. This being his
first charge, with no criminal record, there was a good
chance of "reform" but the judge stuck him with a criminal
record with the word "trafficking" in it so he'll always be
harrassed by border guards anywhere for the rest of his life
and sentenced him to 12 months in probation. He saw a real
need for society's resources to be spent protecting us from
this 18-year old kid armed with a few baggies.

Another thing I don't like about the court, Judge Edward
didn't find the kid $240, he ordered him to give $20 a month
to Crime Stoppers. Sure will make getting his money back
more complicated once it's proven he wrongly convicted the
kid, even on purpose, if we also have to get the money out
of Crime Stoppers rather than the government! Same with
ordering people to donate to certain charities and shelters.
What happens when Judge Edward's errors are finally
corrected and the people he wrongly ruined have to get their
sentences corrected? Sue a women's shelter for your forced
contribution back?

As the judge chastised the kid and told him to go forward
and err no more, I could only surmise that the judge meant
that the next time he wants to change his perceptions, he
should go out and legally get drunk like everyone else
legally does it? Just stop before it impairs. Har har har.

The demonstration of the judge's free-wheeling power to ruin
the kid's life nauseated me. He convicted three other people
who pleaded guilty with the help of the Duty Counsel under
the still-invalid S.4 possession offence. It reminded of an
article I and pasted in my journal just last week:

Brantford Expositor: Nov 26 2004
Simcoe - Provincial police arrested two men with possession
of marijuana after stumbling upon a small pot party in
downtown Simcoe on Tuesday. Police were on foot patrol on
Kent Street when they noticed a small group of people in an
alleyway.

JCT: What, no fighting, screaming, cursing, causing a
disturbance?

>When police approached, they smelled burning marijuana and
noticed someone in the group throwing away a burning
marijuana cigarette. The group was placed under arrest and
police later found marijuana on two Norfolk County men. Both
have been charged with possession of marijuana.

JCT: If Judge Edward convicting a kid while the law is
invalid doesn't puke us out enough, how about two cops
busting a whole crowd for a joint. Of course, cops like any
other group have their bent apples. People who like to push
people around, hurt people, sadists. It's sad to say that
the badge that lets them push people around, that gives them
the same thrill of life-and-death that the old Romans had
with the thumbs up or down in the arena, that satisfies any
sadist's wildest dreams, does draw in people who like
hurting people.

Some cops enjoy the power to have laws where almost everyone
is guilty and they can let you go. Imagine the power knowing
you can destroy their lives or let them go. It's the kind of
control that would make me sick. But I know many who would
find domination over completely satisfying. So, here we see
the worst facets of law enforcement when there are unjust
laws. They won't hit people they like with the unjust law,
only the people they don't like or who don't cow down right.
It's an ugly system giving rein to the ugliest emotions.
Another of Parliament's great bloopers. Prohibition of
alcohol was a completely dunce event, oops, we did the same
dunce thing again. Sorry, we really didn't mean it. Har har.

Actually, what was funniest of all, after the kid had been
convicted and we were going on break, I announced "Is there
anyone here for a marijuana charge who wants to beat it?"
and no one responded. Then three people plead guilty, one
girl with no previous criminal record. Har har har har.

Imagine how many people all the judge now knows he wrongly
convicted while he was ignorant that the law had been dead
since 2001, being no more guilty of incompetence than the
rest of Canada's whole judiciary and bar who, unlike John
The Engineer, did not do their duty to accurately limit the
powers they wielded over people's lives. Executioners who
don't bother reading the fine print on what look to be
execution orders? Sure, they didn't knowingly condemn all
those innocent people to an unjust fate, they were just
ignorant, remaining ignorant and waiting to be told what do
do by Orders from above, rather than seek out the true
situation themselves. No personal initiative. None.

But now it's different. Judge Edward now knows the argument
that Krieger out-ranks Hitzig-Myrden and backs up Parker but
has yet chosen to knowingly keep convicting innocent people
even knowing the truth. Right in front of me, he saddled
four people, two with no criminal records, with registered
convictions for an invalid law.

Unlike all the previous judges could plead ignorance of the
extent of Terry Parker Day declaration until they heard
about it from the higher courts, Edward J. now can't. He
knows he's doing wrong to everyone he convicts from now. He
can repeat "I vas just following orders" all he wants but
that defence for deferring to injustice was thrown out for
the Nazi judges 60 years ago. I think that alibi won't hang
for Canadian judges either." I like the idea of the judges
who did the dirty deeds being on trial someday. I practice
my summations of their indictments in my favorite dreams.
 
It's just like putting Judge Doherty on the spot about
signing his name to his Doherty Deed. When he refused to
sign the resurrection Order, it convinced us that he knows
he was doing a dirty deed and wouldn't make it official.
Sure, no court of justice will ever try his crime, after
all, he erred in opining wrongly, not in Ordering wrong, but
at least in the court of public opinion, the evidence has
been posted for posterity for all eternity.

Back to the Nielsen Application to reconsider quashing the
charges upon the fresh evidence that the "constitutionally
acceptable medical exemption" was absent from the
prohibition again when they were busted or that he is bound
by the higher Supreme Court of Canada Krieger decision than
the lower Ontario Court Hitzig-Myrden decision.

Rather than hand down his ruling before the public court,
like last time, this time Judge Edward cleared the court
"for the pre-trial" and once everyone was gone, then he
dealt with the application to quash we had all come to hear
and had the right to hear. What a doherty deed, oops, dirty
deed. As I left the room, I reminded Doug to make sure the
judge signs off on dismissing the application so we have it
for the next appeal.
   
A few minutes later, Doug, Laurie and Danielle come out of
the courtroom saying that the judge had refused to
reconsider the fresh evidence and their pre-trial would be
starting at 2pm. As if I wouldn't notice that he hid what he
did when it should have been done in open court.

So the application to quash on the grounds that Krieger
outranks Hitzig or that the prohibition is absent again
because the exemption is absent again was dismissed.

Brantford Expositor had a reporter there but still haven't
reported on the Nielsen's challenge to the law. Which
explains why no one in Brantford knows about the Krieger
challenge. Kid Chris didn't hear about the Krieger challenge
because David Judd has suppressed the story for the citizens
of his community. Chris had his life's chances ruined
because of Brantford Expositor editor David Judd. Just
wanted to remind people of the power of the press and the
responsibilities of the press. Did he do his duty to the kid
who has his life ruined? Someday, I'm sure the kids will
catch Judd in public and ask him why he suppressed the
information that cost them their future careers?

Anyway, he thinks he can duck answering the Krieger
question. Har har har har. The Nielsens are going to stand
in front of the courthouse with the challenge kits updated
to include the CAS "absent exemption so absent prohibition"
card asking anyone there for marijuana charges to file it
and make Edward answer someone else's question. With Doug
and Laurie sitting at the back of the room as Judge Edward
has to explain to a newbie how Krieger doesn't beat Hitzig-
Myrden. Har har har har.

If there are 4 a day regularly, they can soon be flooded and
Judge Edward won't be able to duck the question the next
time. Har har har har nyuk nyuk nyuk nyuk nyuk.

Oh, and their other younger 17-year-old daughter Britanny,
knows Chris and has put him in contact with me. The only way
the kid's going to get a clean record is to be the first to
use the Appeal kits at my forms site! Har har har har. No
one has ever yet used the forms to appeal their conviction.
So he'll be able to be the first. After all, if his Duty
Counsel didn't know the law was dead, the cops who busted
him didn't know, the judge who was sentencing him didn't
know better, how was he supposed to know? Same appeal. But
based on Krieger and not the window of legalisation.

Duty counsels snitch accused's plea

Quandary:
I was thinking about how the Nielsens get slated a pre-trial
without having indicated whether they want to plead guilty
or not while all these other people were going straight to
sentencing. How did the system know to skip the pre-trials
for everyone else but not for the Nielsens when Doug hadn't
said anything? If Doug might be not be defending, like all
the others, how did the system know, like all the others,
that he did not need a pre-trial?

Same thing happened to me. I was slated for a pre-trial
before I'd even had the chance to plead guilty. I had not
had a chance to plead guilty yet. How did they know for sure
I wasn't going to plead guilty and that I would be needing
pre-trial. Same question here. Among all those who have not
yet pleaded being called to court, how does the court clerk
know needs to have a pre-trial booked and who doesn't need
to have a pre-trial booked? How does the clerk find out so
that the docket shows only two pre-trials set for all these
people who have not yet pleaded? 

--
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

  • Re: TURMEL: Judge nixes Supreme Court of Canada in Brantford
    ... > the Ontario Court of Appeal in Hitzig-Myrden. ... breaking the law is quite all right if you do not agree with the law. ... > Har har har har. ... > every Nazi judge lose with that alibi on TV at the Nuremberg ...
    (sci.econ)
  • TURMEL: TO Trios motion to Sheppard for pot back
    ... handed the Crown a third demand for their property. ... we'll serve them with a short notice motion ... Har har har har. ... Judge Sheppard was the judge who told them they ...
    (sci.econ)
  • TURMEL: Gravel Krieger Release Round 6 Report
    ... other prisoner who was going to court that day to pass along ... had told him to do last time, serve the federal Crown. ... Then the judge got into how the paperwork still hadn't been ... Har har har har. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: TURMEL: Ed Martins Golden Ganja Gram Grab
    ... Ed Martin is the second person who had his charges ... So this gets another judge on the hook on the ... Har har har har. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • TURMEL: Last day for Crown to duck Factum contempt
    ... If the Crown still want to get a factum before the ... rather than just springing it on him and the court right at ... That's if they have a Factum of arguments to present! ... har har har. ...
    (sci.econ)
Quantcast