TURMEL: Prohibition law "too muddled" or "too dead?"

From: John Turmel (bc726_at_FreeNet.Carleton.CA)
Date: 12/15/04 

Date: 15 Dec 2004 04:23:28 GMT

JCT: There's a fascinating thread going on at Cannabis
Culture where people are starting to ask why no one told
them about Krieger. But first, some Hitzig spin from the
Cannabis Vulture bites the dust:

>DrGreenthumbwpg
>Re: BC Court Case wins on "Law too muddled" argument
>[Re: Marc Scott Emery]
>Date: Sun Dec 12 2004

Marc Emery: "A day later, the Ontario Court of Appeal
'reinstated' section 4(1) of the CDSA regarding marijuana
possession, and ended the 'legal possession' period
established by Parker decision."

DR: Marc since when can the courts make laws? Courts can not
enact laws. If the law is unconstitutional they can strike
it down and they have admitted that the law was dead during
your summer smokeout tour, which I attended in winnipeg.

JCT: So we await Marc's explanation of why POLCOA doesn't
apply.

DR: There was no law against cannabis possession and
parliament hasn't enacted one yet. The courts are trying to
put off the inevitable but precedents have been set and the
law has not been re-enacted by parliament which is the only
body with jurisdiction and the authority to make laws.

JCT: Why don't they know this?

DR: I can't understand why you of all people would be
supporting the government spin that the Hitzig judges made
pot illegal again.

JCT: His sheep-dipping is coming off and he's exposed for
helping with the narc spin on things.

DR: You should be encouraging people to fight their charges
and plug up the courts all they can.

JCT: He can't do that now that's he's led the way with the
new Marc Emery defence strategy of confessing and pleading
guilty.

DR: Think about how important this is, and remember that the
new bill is the same re-crim bill you were talking about
during the smokeout tour.

JCT: That's okay, I have some pretty powerful cards up my
sleeve when they try to bring back the re-crim bill. Notice
you haven't seen me saying anything on it yet. If it comes
in, a whole new array of tactics becomes available.

DR: Read the judgment in the alberta court of appeal, r vs
Krieger the judgment says that sec 7 is unconstitutional and
the crown's appeal to the supreme court of canada was
denied.

JCT: And Emery did his 60 days in jail under a dead law. Har
har har har.

DR: The Hitzig judge was specifically asked to sign an order
that claimed they had re-enacted the prohibition and he
refused. He knows he doesn't have the power to enact a law.

JCT: Wasn't it handy to have fought for that all the way
back to Doherty's desk? Can't see Alan Young trying to steal
the credit for that move too.

DR: So right now cultivation and possession are legal until
parliament passes a new law against them. We need to stop
the recriminalization of our fine herb, remember?

JCT: Sure, it's best if we win before re-crim comes back.
But even if it does, then I get to stuff it down their
throats in ways they may be starting to imagine.

>From: elagabalus
>Re: BC Court Case wins on "Law too muddled" argument
>Date: Sun Dec 12 2004

E: Double amen, Doctor! I'm new to all this so I might have
missed some past discussions.
But I wonder why John Turmel's efforts in the courts and his
compelling arguments that there is still NO LAW against
cannabis are met with such indifference.

JCT: There's only one answer from the indifferent left.

E:It reminds me of Bush's answers about 9/11. If Turmel is
off base, could someone please explain why. So far all I've
heard from the mainstream media is 9/11 type silence. And
all I've heard from the cannabis media is that he's a
"kook". I'd appreciate a reasonable critique of his
position.

JCT: The purpose in calling someone a kook is not to have to
answer the charges of a kook.

>davidmalmolevine Carpal Tunnel
>Re: BC Court Case wins on "Law too muddled" argument!!
>Date: Mon Dec 13 2004

"Just wondering why you posted Steve Kubby's year old letter
without comment, David. It caused a stir on CNews and other
forums. They thought it was fresh news."

DML: 1) I reposted it from the CCC news service that was
debating it again... if the CCC could bring it up again, why
not CC as well?

JCT: CCC's debating a cover story for "we win because the
law is dead. It's going to be "we win because the law is
muddled." Another Hitzig-type weaker argument.

DML: 2) Perhaps the Kubby's sent it around because - as the
lawyer said - it's not for-sure a dead issue.

JCT: If the "law is muddled" is the only alternative to "the
law is dead" that they have left, we're on pretty solid
ground. Should be no resistance from Alison Myrden's nest of
the narc moles.

DML: It certainly makes you wonder if the door is totally
closed forever to the "muddled" argument.

JCT: Forego arguments that the law is "dead" for "muddled?"
I think CCC are going to have a tough sell though I can see
it as some kind of cover story to credit the eventual win
to. The law isn't declared repealed, it's declared
"muddled" pursuant to our constitutional right against undue
muddleness. The Canadian Cannabis Coalition solution.

>Orchidman
>Re: BC Court Case wins on "Law too muddled" argument!!
>Date: Mon Dec 13 2004

O: If anything the law is even more muddled than before.
With cases before the court as we speak that say there is no
law and the phoney cover up of the Hitzig case as well as
the glaring Kreiger ruling, how can a citizen know what the
law is?

JCT: Who's got cases going as we speak?

O: According the judge in Masse it has to be clear and
understandable. If the Kreiger ruling repealed cultivation
and possession and it was upheld by the Supreme Court of
Canada after the Hitzig ruling then that case is supreme.

JCT: Bango right. Must be combat Krieger attacks in
Cochrane, Elliot Lake, Brantford, Toronto, Comox Valley.

O: It's very clear cut and any judge that rules against it
is either corrupt or senile.

JCT: How brutal. I'd be much gentler. Har har har har. No I
wouldn't. Let the truth hurt. Amen.

O: There are several excellent arguments that the law is
dead.

JCT: Krieger, Parker Aces and the Health Canada Gimme.

O: Add to that the fact of uneven enforcement and the law
becomes even more confusing for the citizen. A toronto
lawyer told me that no one even gets charged with simple
possession here anymore unless they are charged with some
other crime. That is actually discrimination and against the
constitution.

Confusing? Getting more confusing? 7 people had charges
dropped by claiming there is no law including 3 from the
Toronto Compassion Club and one person after the law was
supposed to have been fixed. We are guaranteed equality
under the law and if they can get their charges dropped why
can't he?

JCT: Five people, not 7 Parker-Krieger withdrawals.

O: One person is applying today to get out of jail until the
New Supreme Court Case is heard.

JCT: Mike South's Parker-Krieger fight on S.5(2) awaiting
Turmel at the top.

O: Confusing? Even when there was no law a couple of years
ago the police took away legal marijuana from people going
to the Rolling Stones concert at Downsview.

JCT: How can "no law" "law is dead" be confusing?

>MarijuanaCa
>Re: BC Court Case wins on "Law too muddled" argument
>Date: Mon Dec 13 2004

Quote: Actually, the error was made by Steve. It was a fresh
letter. He didn't notice the dates til it was pointed out.
I'm still confused. Did Steve think his year old letter was
"fresh", or was it David who thought it was new news. Are
you David's spokesperson, MarijuanaCa?

Hi elagabalus, No, i'm not David's spokesperson. However, i
am aware of the details surrounding Steve's letter, and
Steve's followup letter afterwards. Attempting to clear up
confusion on public boards about technical issues helps keep
things running more smoothly for all of us.

Steve sent his original letter to a number of places on the
net within the last two weeks. He wrote: "A BC Provincial
Court has just ruled against the pot laws -- just as our
current BC Supreme Court challenge argues!"

I looked at the details of the letter and saw all the cases
were from 2003. I pointed this out to Steve and he posted
again to another place explaining his error that it didn't
"just" occur. I then asked him and others if these 2003
rulings would still be beneficial to our efforts to end
Prohibition. Different people have responded with different
opinions about my question. I hope that clears things up.

JCT: I must admit that it was just in time for me to include
Chen J.'s statement in my Turmel v. Hitzig #30570 Reply at
the Supreme Court of Canada that courts cannot resuscitate
laws that have been nullified.

>elagabalus
>Date: Mon Dec 13 2004

Thanks David and MarijuanaCa for taking time to explain the
circumstances to a stranger. I got excited when I first read
it, thinking it had just happened.
 
Marc's comment seems peremptory:
"A day later, the Ontario Court of Appeal 'reinstated'
section 4(1) of the CDSA regarding marijuana possession, and
ended the 'legal possession' period established by Parker
decision."

E: Where in the Hitzig ruling does it say the law was
reinstated? As far as I can tell the main source for the
belief that the "summer of relegalization" ended on October
7,2003, was Alan Young.

JCT: And John Conroy.

E: Thank you too, Orchidman. I'm less confused now than I
was. Sounds like the Crown isn't sure what's going on
either. Mike South's "get out of jail" case is being heard
in Toronto today. That might clear things up a bit.

>DrGreenthumbwpg member
>Re: BC Court Case wins on "Law too muddled" argument!!
>Date: Mon Dec 13 2004

and what possible reason would Alan have for convincing the
public that pot is illegal again even though the judge from
hitzig refused to sign an order stating the law had been
resurrected?

What could his motive be? Oh wait a second, isn't he
starting a company that sells non smoked cannabis as a "safe
alternative" for med users? I wonder how many customers that
company would have if pot remains completely legal? hmm how
much market will there be for sativex style oral sprays at
exhorbitant costs when anyone can grow their own cannabis
for free and make their own extracts? Not much i reckon. 

---
>DrGreenthumbwpg member 
>Date: Mon Dec 13 2004 
I too would like to hear a reasonable critique of John 
Turmel's argument that the laws are still dead. I don't want 
the usual crap about him being a nut job or a moron either. 
Lets see someone dispute his argument with intelligent 
argument. If Alan is so sure the law is back alive, lets 
hear his explanation of why. Let's hear when exactly courts 
got the authority and jurisdiction to enact laws that have 
been struck down. 
JCT: Bet no one answers. 
---
>elagabalus 
>Date: Mon Dec 13 2004 
Alan Young made a pathetic attempt to critique Turmel's 
claims a few weeks ago:
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/MedPot/message/1516
Marc, David, Chris, - give me some reasons not to believe in 
Turmel.
---
>davidmalmolevine  [Re: elagabalus] 
>Date: Mon Dec 13 2004 
Cut and paste, please... I'm not "signed up" to Yahoo and 
it's better that we have a copy of what we are talking 
about.
JCT: This professional activist missed all four years of 
Turmel court combat even though my legal victories were five 
times reported on in his own Cannabis Culture magazine? 
---
rtav 
Date: Mon Dec 13 2004 
--------------BEGIN PASTE!
From: turmel@n...
Date: Sun Nov 28, 2004 3:34 am
Subject: TURMEL: From Alan Young - True or False? False.
>JCT: Ron drew the slimy Prefessewer out of his hole:
>Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:23:03 -0500
>From: sdali@r... (Master Bates)
>Subject: [MedPot-discuss] From Alan Young True or False
JCT: It details how Alan Young said Parker's case didn't 
have the right materials and I pointed out we had already 
won with the cards he'd had. Why did Young help the Crown 
have Parker's pot set aside was the question he kept 
ducking. 
[.... -----------END PASTE 
>davidmalmolevine
>Date: Mon Dec 13 2004 09:04PM   
DML: I cannot tell from the cut and paste who is telling the 
truth. 
JCT: I thought it was pretty clear. 
DML: All I know is that Alan ignored the pleas of the two 
largest compassion clubs in the country... the clubs that 
wanted him to challenge the faulty MMAR program instead of 
endorse it.... 
JCT: So Alan's crime in their eyes is that he endorsed the 
faulty MMAR program instead of challenging it? That's the 
Compassion Club spin? Well, here's some news. Alan did 
exactly what they asked him to do. Alan got the faulty MMAR 
fixed so that it was now a constitutionally acceptable 
medical exemption they wanted which now could sustain any 
new legislated prohibition. Oops. Luckily, they've never re-
legislated a new prohibition that the fixed MMAR would make 
constitutional. Luckier still is that Health Canada re-
attached two unconstitutional conditions for exemptees as a 
"gimme" win too. 
DML: people in both clubs basically predicted that he would 
lose Hitzig and that he should not have tried to get sick 
people to sign up to a fatally flawed MMAR program, and he 
ignored both clubs.
JCT: No, anyone who says that Alan Young did not challenge the 
faulty MMAR is so way off base that it sounds like an alibi 
for Club people who wanted him to do exactly what they asked 
him to do. There's no way that the responsibility for fixing 
the MMAR when the law was already dead cannot remain with 
the Club people who admit they urged Alan to do just exactly 
what he did do. Challenge the faulty MMAR and fix the MMAR. 
That's exactly what we reproach Young. David's taking credit 
for pushing him to do just that. Bringing the CDSA back to 
life was just an unfortunate consequence that David had not 
foreseen. 
DML: Didn't even apologise afterwards.
JCT: Why should Alan Young apologize for not challenging the 
faulty MMAR when when he did "challenge the faulty MMAR" 
exactly as you all urged him to do. It's just that you may 
not have all realized that you were paying for the very 
opposite result of what you desired. Oops. 
Of course, poor David can alibi that he had not read any of 
my posts explaining this. How else can be admit that he was 
with the people urging Young while the CDSA was dead to fix 
the MMAR and bring the CDSA back to life now. Oops. 
DML: This doesn't make me feel confident in him when others 
criticize him. 
JCT: What's causing the lack of confidence is you telling us 
that you urged him to challenge the faulty MMAR that brought 
the CDSA back to life and that he did not obey your 
instructions. He did and everyone here knows that that is 
exactly what we all reproach him. You're telling us that you 
wanted the faulty MMAR challenged to fix the CDSA.  
DML: I would very much like it if others who know more about 
Hitzig would chime in and give their opinions... any takers?
JCT: And they keep using the Malmo-Levine loss at the 
Supreme Court of Canada as some kind of precedent against us 
but we can now show that the champion for our side had no 
idea what was going on in the Canadian jurisprudence so no 
one can expect someone as uninformed as him to win so and it 
can't be held as a precedent-setting decision against us, 
much like Alan Young's sabotaged cases.  
---
>DrGreenthumbwpg 
>Date: Mon Dec 13 2004 10:48 PM  
David check out this site that has links to all the 
paperwork and court judgment to back up Turmels claim that 
the law is still dead.
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/mpforms.htm 
---
DrGreenthumbwpg 
Date: Mon Dec 13 2004 10:49 PM  
GENERAL FACTS:
Timeline for Marijuana Prohibitions 
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/timeline.htm 
JCT: He posted the whole timeline. 
---
>davidmalmolevine 
>Date: Mon Dec 13 2004 11:01 PM  
DML: You seem to be somewhat familiar with this pile of 
spagehti... could you nutshell it in 50 words or less for 
those of us who's brain is hurting? 
JCT: Real interested in the entire defence, isn't he? Not. 
DML: (hurting from trying to explain "biocolonialism" to 
powerful over-sensitive members of the colonial caste and/or 
those convinced that "subtile racism" is non-existant) 
JCT: He's so busy lecturing on the sophisticated esoteric 
subjects that his brain hurts over the easy stuff about 
marijuana. Why is it that the champions doing the talking 
for our side are always they guys with the sore brains. 
--- 
>Orchidman 
>Date: Tue Dec 14 2004 03:36 AM 
O: There are many points to this argument but here are the 
main ones. 
The Parker ruling repealed the possession law. The Hitzig 
ruling re-instated the law. Basically this is beyond the 
jurisdiction of the court and Parker ruling specifically 
demanded legislation not regulations. 
JCT: Don't lawyers know this? 
O: The main thrust is the Kreiger ruling. It repealed the 
law against cultivation and possession and by implication 
trafficking. This ruling was made in the highest court in 
Alberta and should influence all judges at this level. 
However the ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada 
which now binds all judges in Canada. 
JCT: Bingo from the top. 
O: The supreme court ruling in Kreiger was handed down after 
Hitzig and is the latest law to be judged and so takes 
precedence over Hitzig. So, possession and cultivation are 
repealed. They also said if you have a medical need you 
don't need a stinking license. The whole thing has been 
covered up by corrupt media.
The Hitzig ruling is also attacked here. The judges in 
Hitzig refused to put it in writing that the Hitzig ruling 
re-instated the law. They know they can't re-instate a dead 
law and they refused to put it in writing. In other words 
they only gave an opinion that it would re-instate the law 
but they did not re-instate it. 
JCT: How handy to have pushed it to the top.
O: There are many other points in there that show the law is 
of no force and effect.
Lawyers are dirty and make dirty deals and laugh about them. 
The nice thing about these forms is that a person does not 
hire a lawyer. They go to court by themselves and present a 
motion to quash based on the forms. They don't have to make 
any argument, just say see the forms. If the forms are 
rejected, then they can see a lawyer. It's better to go in 
without a lawyer. 
JCT: If the forms are rejected, they replace the first page 
with Notice of Motion to Quash with Notice of Motion to 
Prohibit and do it again, then appeal because that stays 
the court process. Like I'm doing now. When you get back 
down, then you make your personal medical constitutional 
objection. Then go to trial back where you started with a 
lawyer. 
O: Yes I think Turmel is a mad British Bull dog gone crazy 
wild, attacking everything in sight but man what a weapon. 
Sure we might get some collateral damage, but he's chomping 
at the Crown. Sick em, Turmel. 
JCT: I'm angry all right. 
O: I think anyone charged with a marijuana offence should 
seriously read the motion to quash and the get out of jail 
motions. As I said before, any judge who does not agree is 
either corrupt or senile. 
JCT: It is nice that the only two alternatives are so 
apparent. 
---
>davidmalmolevine 
>Date: Tue Dec 14 2004 10:16 AM  
"The main thrust is the Kreiger ruling. It repealed the law 
against cultivation and possession and by implication 
trafficking. This ruling was made in the highest court in 
Alberta and should influence all judges at this level. 
However the ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada 
which now binds all judges in Canada. The supreme court 
ruling in Kreiger was handed down after Hitzig and is the 
latest law to be judged and so takes precedence over Hitzig. 
So, possession and cultivation are repealed. They also said 
if you have a medical need you don't need a stinking 
license. The whole thing has been covered up by corrupt 
media."
DML: I must be blind.... where does it say "possession and 
cultivation are repealed"? In Kreiger? In that pile of 
spagetti up there? Is the Kreiger case on line? Do I just 
print out Kreiger next time I'm busted for personal or 
cultivation and slap that sucker down and say "no laws - let 
me out of here"?
JCT: It's finally sinking in. Does it say "possession and 
cultivation are repealed in Krieger?" Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes and 
yes again. And he's laughing at where he conclusions have 
taken him! He doesn't sound happy about just pulling out 
Krieger, does he? 
And besides, no matter how hard he searches, he'll never 
find it if he keeps spelling it wrong. It's Krieger. "I" 
before "e" except after "c."
DML: Are you saying we just need one high-profile activist 
to try Kreiger out in front of the press to end cannabis 
prohibition? (not that I trust judges anymore, but you never 
know ....)
JCT: No, the highest-profile activist with 3.3Kg on 
Parliament Hill can't break through the press, but a high-
profile narc establishment darling doing so, yes. The 
question isn't how to get it in front of the major press, 
it's how to get it in front of the cannabis press. 
DML: So many silly questions. thanks for trying to answer 
them.
JCT: Someone's got to try to bring Canada's most celebrated 
marijuana champion up to date. 
---
>DrGreenthumbwpg 
>Date: Tue Dec 14 2004 10:39 AM  
KRIEGER JUDGE ACTON IN ALBERTA DECLARES CDSA S.7(1) 
PROHIBITION ON CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA INVALID 
Judge Acton ruled in R. v. Krieger: 
"[44] I am satisfied that s. 7(1) of the CDSA deprives Mr. 
Krieger and those who are similarly situated of their rights 
under s. 7 of the Charter to the extent that it prohibits 
these individuals from producing raw cannabis marihuana for 
their own therapeutic purposes. I am also convinced that 
such deprivation is not in accordance with the principles of 
fundamental justice... 
[55] I am prepared to agree with the Applicant that s. 7(1) 
of the CDSA should be struck down to the extent that it 
deals with production of cannabis marihuana. If s. 4 were 
before me I, like the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. 
Parker , supra , would strike down the prohibition against 
possession of marihuana because to do otherwise would be, to 
use Dr. Kalant's word, "inhumane" to Mr.Krieger under the 
circumstances." 
DR: They were ruled unconstitutional and an unconstitutional 
law is automatically of no force ands effect. Krieger 
cinches it for medical use for sure and grant didn't have an 
exemption either. 
JCT: Good point I'd failed to make.
DR: The law was ruled unconstitutional anyway and that 
should have struck it down for everybody. 
JCT: Except we know the media, the Crown and the Defence 
lied to cover up Section 7 being struck down. 
DR: I think that the press will misreport anything to do 
with it anyway. I'm no lawyer but if you go through the 
materials it seems pretty obvious that they are illegally 
prosecuting people when they know the laws have been struck 
down. 
JCT: Sumbitch David Frankel certainly knew the crimes he was 
letting his police commit against the population. And 
probably brother Harvey and the other shysters in the 
Attorney General's prosecution cabal. 
DR: Read the crown memo to the supreme court of canada in 
its appeal. The supreme court denied the crowns appeal even 
though the crown said it was important the judge allow the 
appeal or they would effectively be repealing the 
prohibition and cultivation. 
JCT: That's the best finding of all. Sorry, best mining. 
---
>davidmalmolevine 
>Date: Tue Dec 14 2004 10:52 AM  
When Conroy gets back from his holiday, he should have a 
look at this. E-mail him at jconroy@johnconroy.com... tell 
him what you know and ask him his opinion... I consider him 
the "least corruptable" of all the lawyers I know. I'll ask 
him about it too, the next time I see him. 
JCT: John Conroy's the other lawyer on TV who helped Alan 
Young announce the end of the summer of legalisation by the 
Hitzig resurrection? What a great reference. 
---
>From: source 
>Date: Tue Dec 14 2004 12:07 PM  
It has to do with that That he is the big lawyer guy that 
everyone looks to for expertise and he did not tell you that 
the whole of the law does not even apply to you and he is 
supporting and subsisting off of a fictional scam!! 
You'd think you would have got that David... 
Why not comment on your amazement at what you just read.. It 
is kind of humbling isn't it? Kind of makes you feel you've 
wasted a lot of time fighting fictional law right? 
If you like feeding bogus lawyers to support fiction than 
you may feel differently but how about all who are believing 
the lie? Don't you want to tell them? Don't you want to 
scream at the top of your lungs it is all a fiction and the 
law does not apply to us and heres proof? 
Why not expose the fraud David?  Why continue to act as if 
the law of the corporation applies to you and I?? 
Now that the proof is available for all to see that the law 
of the corporation known as Canada is not applicable to men 
and women don't you think it deserves expansion and 
discussion??   
JCT: Sounds like it applies but may be orthogonal. 
---
Orchidman  
Date: Tue Dec 14 2004 03:13 PM 
Source, Your argument adds one more point to the "too 
muddled" theory. 
JCT: Last point. If we win due a violation of our right to 
life, they can't fix it. If we win due to a violation of our 
right to non-muddleness, they can just change it. What's is 
Prohibition law "too muddled" or "too dead" best? 
--
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