TURMEL: Noreen plays Krieger Ace in BC court Dec 9
From: John Turmel (bc726_at_FreeNet.Carleton.CA)
Date: 12/05/04
- Next message: John Turmel: "TURMEL: Justice Sopinka on POLCOA"
- Previous message: rjbjr: "Re: More economically efficient US?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 5 Dec 2004 02:42:20 GMT
JCT: One of our most stalwart readers from the
http://yahoogroups.com/group/medpot-discuss listserv is
Noreen (wworld@island.net (Evers)) from B.C. She was charged
with marijuana cultivation under S.7 and possession for the
purpose of trafficking under S5.2. The same as everyone else.
N: My questions:
1)Am I in the right court (jurisdiction)?
JCT: I'm not sure when you qualify for Superior Court and
even a jury. It depends if your S.5(2) charge is for over
3Kg in which case you face a life sentence like I used to
before they charged me with having less than I had. But if
they're starting you off in lower court, like the Nielsens,
then it's the same two-step process as the Nielsens.
N: Should I be asking right away for a superior court (and
how would I do that?) to:
JCT: No. The first step is to exhaust possible "no longer
known to law" quash remedy where you are like the Nielsens
did before Judge Edward. If he won't quash the charge and is
going to put you through the ringer, then, and only then, do
you replace Page 1 in your Quash Notice of Application with
a new Page 1 I've recently added for your Notice of
Application for Prohibition. I've spent the last week
developing a "deluxe" kit which includes the actual Crown
Memorandum at the Supreme Court of Canada with Sumbitch
David Frankel's signature stating that he, the Ministry of
Justice's Supreme Court of Canada lawyer, knows that S.7 and
S.4 prohibitions have been off no force and effect since
struck down by Alberta's highest court and hid it from the
cops and other Crown Attorneys engaged in wrongly
prosecuting Canada another 60,000 Canadians.
N: a) handle constitutional issues? (Section 52),
JCT: This is step 3. Once the Nielsens moved to quash
pursuant to S.601 of the Criminal Code and their judge did
not see the injustice of putting them through the grinder,
they then went to Step 2 asking for an Order prohibiting the
continued prosecution. If Judge Edward can't see the
injustice, another judge has to stop him. Or three others at
the Court of Appeal or nine others at the Supreme Court of
Canada. An application for prohibition stays the proceeding
below until it is settled, a ride to the top first if you've
got Turmel as your armaments engineer. Only after you get
sent back below and you now have to put on a defence to what
they have decided is a no longer absent law, then you start
the trial process with your Parker/Krieger
constitutional/medical challenge. If, for some reason, you
can't convince your judge you're as deserving of growing
your own medicine as Terry and Grant, then you end up at
trial. Now you have to make all the motions that were made
in the Ray Turmel case. Reverse Onus, Necessity, a few more.
I'll build those kits when you get there but the master move
to copy has already been played.
N: b) offences unknown to law
JCT: That's taken care of in Steps 1 and 2. That's the non-
constitutional issue. We don't want to argue the law is bad,
we want to argue it's dead. If they say it's alive, then we
argue it's bad a la Parker.
N: bc) hook up to John's SCC cases.
JCT: That's their only out if they see that you're right and
they are bound by the Ontario Court. But in BC, you are not
bound by the bad Hitzig resurrection order so hooking up to
my case shouldn't be a necessary option for them. They'll
just have to go along with the Supreme Court. You have the
best chance of all of us.
N: d) also hook up to Vancouver Island Compassion Society
(grower) case (still before the courts - I think still
getting adjourned).
JCT: At least it would make the news. Then other growers
could file their Krieger challenges and spread the word to
other parts of Canada. There's a media blackout on news
coming out of Turmel. Notice how it shut down the Hearst-
Kapuskasing and Elliot Lake papers from reporting on the
challenges. They're all scared to violate the Turmel
blackout once they find out it's a move engineered by
Turmel.
N: 2. Can I use John's forms if I change them to BC - or how
do I go about getting the right forms (I don't want to screw
this up by having the wrong stuff or being in the wrong
court).
JCT: You can't screw up anything because of the all-purpose
Order sought in your Notice for:
"AND FOR any Order abridging the time for service, filing,
or hearing of the application, or amending any defect as to
form or content of the application, or for any Order deemed
just."
JCT: There is no defect that the judge cannot correct and
I've never, in 25 years of guerrilla law, seen a judge throw
out something on such a technicality except once. They
always permitted it to be fixed even if they were throwing
it out. For instance, even the Doherty Court. I had filed to
quash and then appealled but they pointed out I should have
then gone for the Order of Prohibition before appealing and
yet chose to treat it as an appeal over the Order of
Prohibition. They fixed it all right then and there.
Technical glitches are just not something a judge will hold
against a self-defender.
N: 3. What are the magic words I use to make sure the judge
represents me? (I am not getting a lawyer).
JCT: "Without a lawyer, I'm counting on you the judge to
make sure the process is just." With a lawyer, he can watch
you fumble the family farm and can't do anything. Without a
lawyer, it's his job to make sure it's done right.
N: 4. Any other things I should know? I would REALLY
appreciate input from those in the know. (eg. Ed and John)
JCT: I have never before answered anyone who put me in the
same category as Ed. This is a first. So please, make it a
last. Check out the archives and you'll see that when Ed is
included as an equal in any request, I don't answer. I think
he's a lunatic who hurt the movement over and over again and
no amount of being polite can merit including such a
saboteur's name on the same team with me. Please and thank
you.
N: 5. PS. I seem to recall something to the effect Crown
stating in an affidavit 'if pot was legal then so would
cultivation and trafficking'.
JCT: It's actually in the Crown Memorandum where Sumbitch
David Frankel says that: cultivation (and by implication
possession) is of no force and effect. I've decided to
include the complete version in the new deluxe quash +
prohibit kit.
N: I believe it was around the time of Cindy-Cripps Prawak.
I am hoping I still have all that stuff and will be looking
for it. Do you still have copies of that John or Marc? I got
it in an email from John, and it used to be on the old
'medpot-discuss' at Yahoo - but I'm not all that internet
savvy, but will try to find it.
JCT: It may be elsewhere and isn't it sad that yahoogroups
now only searches 30 messages at a time out of 8000 when,
in the past, it searched the whole archive. There's almost
no chance of finding it at yahoogroups. But you could try
Google USENET newsgroups, especially the can.politics or
alt.fan.john-turmel groups where I post everything and
Google can search for it. Yahoogroups has turned into a
useless archive while Google Groups still does the job.
Search there for "wayniest" for one of my favorite posts.
N: 6. I will be contacting Crown tomorrow (later today) to
ask for the information disclosure and their stance on
sentencing.
JCT: You don't need any of this yet. You may not even be
going to trial. I can't help but feel that they should use
the TO Trio defence here too. Give up and withdraw and hope
everyone forgets how the Krieger card plays. Especially, the
defence duty counsels.
N: PS. Never heard back from the kid from Nov 5. I think he
probably pled guilty. Too bad. Thanx. Noreen
JCT: It's sad thinking his whole life has been affected by
his new criminal record and he doesn't yet realize it.
N: I am still a little curious John - if you found that
Crown memorandum from Kreiger - para 58 has a small "c"
underneath it. Was that 'clipped' from the original
memorandum? So was the part about no 5.2 in 'Alberta' true
or was it yours -or Ed's -remarks?)
JCT: It was just a typo. An extra "c" for nothing.
Everything you need is in paragraph 57 where Sumbitch David
Frankel admits the Ministry of Justice knows the Highest
court in Alberta have ruled the s.7 prohibition of no force
and effect was one I picked up at the Supreme Court of
Canada. No one has a copy except the Crown, Krieger's lawyer
and me. The Crown and Krieger's lawyer have kept quiet about
it. You let them bring up the second part of para.57
explaining how they did nothing because lower Alberta court
Judge O'Leary's stay over-rules Alberta's and Canada's
highest courts too.
N: Anyways - I served Crown at 8:45 in their office
(Thursdays only, but right beside the courthouse) - she
signed 2 copies, but didn't seem to know why she had to sign
them, (I didn't really know either, but I was told I should
ask her, so I didn't have to use the affidavit, makes things
much easier for everyone, etc, etc)
JCT: She has to sign proof of service because you can't file
your motion without proving that they got a copy.
N: so she signed 2 copies and kept one, she also said she
wouldn't be able to address the quash today, as she had just
received it and court was at 9:00 - which I said I know she
didn't have time to look at it but that it would be ok to
put it over - we would discuss it later.
I went into the courthouse - didn't actually make it into
the court room - I had to go into a little room they send
you in 1st to see if you qualify for legal aid and to let
you know what courtroom you would be in, kind of an advance
timeroom. She informed me that I wouldn't see a justice,
that it would have to be a judge (because of the motion),
and she hadn't had time to look at it really and would need
a couple of weeks to address it, so was Dec 9th OK?
JCT: Is this the same girl or is this a duty counsel?
N: I said it was fine, and I was so very sorry about the
short notice, but it really shouldn't be too difficult for
her to address as 4 or 5 similar quashes had already been
filed with other Crowns across Canada - I had just really
added the extra reasons of 5(2), in case an earlier Crown
hadn't bothered to look it up, plus I added the Aids Society
papers addressing the MMAR.
I also let her know I added a copy of the Constitution, but
that it was actually more for clarity of the issues. I also
asked if I would get to plead today (but no because I wasn't
going before a judge today - because these things would have
to be sorted out first, so there wasn't really a point in
seeing a judge today), and, I also asked "depending on my
plea, (not wanting to give them any hints) - IF I were to
plead not guilty, and because of the charge, and the penal
sanction of life in prison, I would like to be able to take
the option of judge and jury, and could I do that in a
Provincial Court, or should I just be asking for a Superior
Court right off the bat?"
JCT: You may not automatically have the right to a jury.
N: She said we would still see a Provincial court judge
1st. (I am presuming about the quash). She said I should
seek legal aid, I said I don't think I really need a lawyer
right now, but she said it would be easier for her if I had
counsel to set trial dates, etc, because then she would know
when the lawyer would be free. So I told her I would look
into it. So I intend to see if I qualify for legal aid, and
what dates the lawyer would be free for trial, should I wish
to use his services - then.
So I had to wait a long time to get in to see her, and while
I was waiting, I took up chatting to the nice looking young
girl beside me and asked what she was here for. She said she
wasn't here for herself, but her boyfriend was here, and he
wanted to adjourn his court case because his parents are in
the US and he wanted to go home for Christmas. "So what are
his charges?" - says I, "Possession of marihuana" says she,
and I says, "Well! I believe I have something to show
you.... "Always plead mute"... as I pull a large package out
of an envelope.. do do do do (jaws sound).
JCT: If he pleads guilty, he'll never go on vacation to the
US with his parents ever again.
N: Dear John: Never did catch their names, but they would
like to thank you very much. They will be checking the
website.
That's all for now. Will let you know about the 9th. IF
anyone happens to find Crown's memorandum in Kreiger, please
check out para 58, (and see if it has a little c underneath
it - and maybe call Crown and ask what it means).
Thanks for the phone conversations, Doug and Laurie and
John. (John - maybe you could mention the difference again
between the 'letter' of the law and the 'spirit' of the law
please? (re 5.2 ) I keep thinking I'm missing something).
JCT: I've always argued that once the Parker repeal had
taken effect, how was that reflected in the legislation.
Judge Doherty ruled that judges would remember which
sections weren't valid and which were without having to
actually reprint the legislation (right after the judiciary
forgot about Parker for 2 years worth of wrong
persecutions). I am arguing that since they did not reprint
Section 4 adding "except marijuana" to "it's illegal to
possess anything on the banned list," then the only way for
the Parker ruling to be properly reprinted was for the word
marijuana to be deleted from the list. That's the letter of
the law argument.
The one I'd forgotten but will include in my Reply is the
spirit of the law which Judge Earle-Renton put so succinctly
in my motion to quash: if you can possess, you can't be
possessing for an illegal purpose. Sure, they can impute an
improper purpose in my having a large amount of an illegal
substance but they cannot impute an improper purpose in
having a large amount of a legal substance. If cultivating
and possessing are legal, how can possessing for an illegal
purpose be inferred? I call that the spirit of the law
argument.
N: By the way, I have cultivation and trafficking (over)
charges. I made very sure in this quash though, I did not
put any compassion club stuff in, nor did I mention it with
Crown - although it is in the disclosure. We shall see what
happens.
JCT: That can all be defended later, once it's been found
out if you should even have to defend.
N: Thanx to all, and especially to you Marc, for not
'culling' anyone from this site (except for spam of course).
Knowledge is power. Noreen
N: 29569 Her Majesty the Queen v. Grant Wayne Krieger
(Alta.) (Criminal) (By Leave)
2003-11-06 Correspondence received from, S. D. Frankel
dated Nov. 3, 2003 re: further information (sent to the
judges on Nov. 12, 2003)
JCT: I don't know what this is about.
>Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 15:29:50 +0000
>From: buds_4_life@rogers.com (doug_laurie_nielsen)
>Subject: [MedPot-discuss] Re: Crown memo
>To: MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com
D&L: The legal aid & lawyer thing is probably a big waste of
your time. They like you to use a lawyer so they can make
deals with them instead of dealing with you directly....
JCT: It would be nice to see the Krieger card presented by a
lawyer, just to say one of them got it. Right now, the only
lawyer we know in Canada who knows it's dead is S. David
Frankel and he's not telling.
D&L: BTW everyone should know that if you have a lawyer, the
judge doesn't have to protect your rights, that's what the
lawyers for. They usually do all the talking & you're bound
be their schedule...we saw a guy's case get remanded for 7
months, because the lawyer was too busy..... The other thing
is...considering this info is out there & some lawyer must
have read it....why aren't they standing up & defending
their clients under these issues?
JCT: That's the real intriguing question. Why is it that
lawyers just can't understand how "the highest court in
Alberta has ruled S.7 of no force and effect" works.
D&L: A friend of ours plead guilty to possession, the lesser
charge & his girlfriend walked. He paid $2500.00 to his
lawyer total... just to pay a $600.00 fine on top of it all.
He showed the kit to his lawyer & he didn't want anything to
do with it... & most won't. due to lack of knowledge we
think
JCT: When it wins, they'll be able to tax their lawyers'
bills! Har har har har.
D&L: We're trying to help someone get a private peace bond.
We asked a few questions & the duty counsel came right out &
said "I don't know, we don't usually deal with that, it's
private" What a disappointment. The moral of the story
is....No one will fight any harder for YOU....than
YOU....except John maybe....By the sounds of it you're
becoming an expert already...that's the key, you already
know more than any lawyer about this topic :o) D & L
>Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 23:35:24 -0800
>From: wworld@island.net (Evers)
>Subject: Re: [MedPot-discuss] Re: Crown memo
N: I know about the lawyer thing, and I also know most of my
cases pretty well (Although I didn't know Crown had 3 days
to get me up before a judge - guess I should have read 601
better (I am presuming that's where it is).
I only want a lawyer (eg. read legal aid. ) when/if I need
to get witnesses in. I figure I can call Terry & Marc in
(they are expert witnesses, being med issue from day one, as
well as Hillary Black and a couple of specialists in from
Vancouver (AIDS, chronic pain) ... so that is the stuff that
will cost - for the witnesses I mean - otherwise I really
don't think I need a lawyer. And I think if I represent
myself, I can at anytime get a lawyer if I want to anyways.
JCT: Right. Later, if all the guerrilla motions are
dismissed.
N: NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal law -
Cannabis marihuana - Cultivation and trafficking - Accused
cultivating cannabis marihuana for his own medical needs and
supplying others as well - Trial judge finding that
prohibition on production of cannabis marihuana infringing
accused's s. 7 Charter rights and not saved by s. 1 -
Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that s. 7 of
the Charter guarantees the right to grow (and by
implication, possess) marihuana, to anyone with a medical
need for this drug - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in
holding that, by reason of s. 7 of the Charter, to sustain
the validity of the general prohibition on the production
(and by implication, possession) of marihuana, the
government of Canada is obliged to ensure a legal, safe, and
reliable source and supply of this drug for anyone with a
medical need for it - Controlled Drugs and Substances Act,
S.C. 1996, c. 19, ss. 5(2), 7(1), 56.
JCT: Where did this come from? It mentions (by implication,
possession) here too. Looks like the citation for Krieger.
Useful but I've never seen it.
>Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 00:28:39 -0800
>From: wworld@island.net (Evers)
>Subject: TURMEL: S.7(1) declared no force & effect; Crown
>To: MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com
I thought the constitution was good all across Canada??
Whatever happened to that?? Interestingly enough, Kreiger
was court and CA in Alberta, but a BC Crown, and a hearing
at the SCC on Ontario. HOW does anything relate to Alberta
only?? Possession, and cultivation are legal for all - all
the way across Canada - period, end of story. If I'm not
right - what does sect 52 mean?? (And 32).
>From: Evers <wworld@island.net>
>Date: Mon Nov 29, 2004 0:28pm
>Subject: Re: TURMEL: TO Trio's motion to Sheppard for pot back
N: John/D&L, from recent posts - you said something about
knowing Bruce Ryan. I was wondering if you could please ask
him to send me a copy of the letter he sent to Crown (3
times) - asking for his stuff back. I would like to do the
same or should I just have ready a copy of this motion to
hand to the judge? (Depending on the outcome of the quash
motion). I intend to ask for my equipment and the value of
the plants, as well as any dried cannabis. Thanx. Noreen
JCT: Unnecessary. They get all stuff back. The pot was
withheld on the grounds that it's still a controlled
substance. If you win, it won't be so you get it all
back without needing to ask.
From: doug_laurie_nielsen <buds_4_life@rogers.com>
Date: Mon Nov 29, 2004 4:25pm
Subject: Re: TURMEL: TO Trio's motion to Sheppard for pot back
First you have to get your charges quashed, dropped or
thrown out, then you can ask for everything back. John was
the one to prepare Bruce's motions for him, including the
one to get the pot & equipment beck.
We think Bruce would have got the pot back too if he had
just studied a little more. He was in the window of death
2001-2003, but had no licence to grow.
They threw out the charges, gave them back everything except
the pot. When it came down to the judge he had a problem
with the fact that Bruce didn't have a permit at the time of
the bust, so he didn't have legal possession of the pot at
that time.
The thing is...he didn't need his permit back then...pot was
legal during the window of death time frame, everyone admits
that. Since pot was legal when he got busted & he now has
his permits, he was legal every way & deserved to have it
back.... but he didn't express it that way to the judge at
the time & so he didn't get it back. Studying & home work
pays off...hope we've done ours well enough for tomorrow :o)
D & L
JCT: And the next day, they fought off Judge Edward.
>Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 00:35:56 -0800
>From: wworld@island.net (Evers)
>Subject: Re: TURMEL: Nielsens' Jan 14 Superior Court motion
>To: TURMEL@ncf.ca (John Turmel), buds_4_life@rogers.com
(Buds)
N: I have more questions -
1. If there is no 'plea', then you are 'pre-plea', then you
can enter more motions to quash?
JCT: Yes. The judge had no right to refuse to deal with the
motion to quash with fresh evidence. He should have
dismissed it. Of course, the dismissal can be inferred when
we appeal. "He did not grant our application..."
N: 2. What is a 'pre-trial'?
JCT: I've never had one but I think it's a look at the
evidence before a judge to see what goes and what stays.
N: 3. Please explain: a writ of prohibition against
prosecution & take it higher. Could you please send me a
copy so I am ready for them? Thanx.
JCT: It is page P1 instead of page Q1 in the quash kit. It
asks for an Order of Prohibition instead of an Order to
quash. But everything else is basically the same. Just at a
higher court.
N: 4. "so you don't want to make a plea then or something
like that & Doug told him, no I'm not done with what I'm
doing at my end, I'm not finished yet. J. Edward & the crown
then co-ordinated their free time for us come back, to set a
date for trial."
They can do this??? So what did you do? Just leave or what?
Where does it say that the judge has to look after your
interests? I think I may like to point that out.
JCT: Actually, I don't know where it says that the judge
must make sure the process if fair if you don't have a
lawyer to do it for you. I only know that most judges end up
doing it anyway.
N: 5. "We go back next wednesday to set a date for trial."
(Read on- this comes up later).
6. "Remember that the judge had told him he couldn't keep
bringing motions to quash. Of course, since he's not seized
of the issue, Doug can bring it to any judge. The fact it's
Edward again shouldn't matter. After all, Turmel argued
three pre-plea motions in my Casino Turmel trial. One before
the trial, another during the Crown's evidence and finally a
third at the end of the the Crown's evidence. My judge had
to sign off on all three."
So the judge has to sign off? What does he sign? Then what?
JCT: The judge has to endorse on the back of the Application
Record his decision granting the motion or dismissing it.
N: 7. 'Notice of Application for prohibition.
At what point is this done? (eg. What about the 'pre-trial'
date on Wednesday?)
JCT: They've already had their pre-trial before Edward last
week. This Wednesday is just to pick a date which they
shouldn't be able to do once it's admitted that they've
taken the case to a higher court.
N: I would really like to be able to comprehend all this
stuff. A little clarification of the regulations/court
process would help.
8. By the way, you are not allowed to tape in BC. I guess I
will have to get copies of the transcripts. Just ask at the
court registry?? How long do they usually take to get - I
want to ensure that I have all the info right - so I want to
make sure I don't book a court date before I have them.
(Right?)
JCT: Sad that your S.15 charter right to equal treatment
under the law doesn't include what we in Ontario and Quebec
get, a copy of the best info right away.
N: Sorry to be asking so many questions, but one really does
need to know. I think I am in for the same fight.
JCT: Apparently, Noreen says that she was told by a local
lawyer that in the Crown's office, "there are some quite
upset people (his words, not mine). Thanx. Noreen"
JCT: Glad to hear it. Imagine finding out that every
marijuana bust in the past 3 years will have to be
withdrawn. I can understand how they'd be so upset.
N: PPS. I am sending this privately - just in case Crown
monitors medpot-discuss.
JCT: We know they do but I like letting them know that we
know they're getting upset. Maybe they'll blow some moves
like they did with me.
>Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 23:39:40 -0800
>From: wworld@island.net (Evers)
>Subject: [MedPot-discuss] These should probably be added to
the timeline
N: I think these should be added to the timeline, just to
prove MMAR wasn't fixed (not that it could be anyways, but
just to point out that the gov't didn't obey the court
anyways - 3 Dec 2003 - before Kreiger)
http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partII/2003/20031217/html/sor387-e.html
JCT: It is already in the timeline for Dec 03 2003
>Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 12:16:44 +0000
>From: tsunami8972@hotmail.com (tsunami8972)
>Subject: [MedPot-discuss] Re: Clear as crystal.
>To: MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Just as it is the job of government to legislate, and it is
the job of police to enforce, and it is the job of
prosecutors to prosecute, the judges have their jobs too.
They are to build the case law and reflect the views of
society. If everyone in Canada felt it was okay to be a
pedophile, they would be very light on them.
The recent NORML poll showed that 55% of the population felt
that when caught with small amounts of pot the people should
be left alone. In Quebec 68% felt they should be left alone.
So when people get to court with small amounts of pot like
Doug and Laurie, the judges job is to leave them alone.
JCT: We do not want to win this because the majority now
feel it's okay. We want to win it because 4 epileptics a day
can be saved. What good is the wish of the majority if they
take a poll and the sheople somehow reverse themselves. I've
seen it done. Search for "Humphrey Appleby" and "Turmel" and
you'll learn all about how to fix polls. The winning
argument is to end genocide, not cater to the whim of the
majority.
-- 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
- Next message: John Turmel: "TURMEL: Justice Sopinka on POLCOA"
- Previous message: rjbjr: "Re: More economically efficient US?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
