TURMEL: #2A Prohibition law "too muddled" or "too dead?"

From: John Turmel (bc726_at_FreeNet.Carleton.CA)
Date: 12/18/04 

Date: 18 Dec 2004 04:30:10 GMT

JCT: DrGreenThumb posted my article about the muddled law at
Cannabis Culture:

>DrGreenthumbwpg
>Re: BC Court Case wins on "Law too muddled" argument!!
>Date: Tue Dec 14 2004 10:05 PM

DR: David please respond to this as i have been trying to
cement your credibility with the well informed group of
stoners i hang with online. This is the most important cover
up that we as activists could ever uncover. I cannot be as
open as you for family concerns but you have the ear of the
culture and ir is your responsibility to inform our people.
I hate thinking that what appears to be happening is really
happening because it appears one of my personal heroes may
even be invested in it. Let's get this out in the open
David. I know you are no bigot who hates the white man like
has been suggested around here lately. Hell I am the white
man. Just read this post and respond thoughtfully like you
do to bennet's posts and you will further your cedibility
greatly with those who aren't only members at cc.
JCT: There's a fascinating thread going on at Cannabis 

---
>elagabalus 
>Date: Tue Dec 14 2004 11:05 PM  
E: From the Doctor's post(of Turmel's post):
>DGT "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."
E: Turmel has leveled serious accusations against some major 
leaders in the cannabis community. He publishes every reply 
on his website. All I've seen so far is people calling him 
an idiot, or worse. Any of you experts care to call his bet 
and deliver a reasonable critique?...
Criticize his arguments and let us be the judge, experts.
---
>eco2man 
>Turmel and David Malmo-Levine should apologize.  
>Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 10:05 AM  
ECO: Moderators: This thread should be moved in my opinion 
to the politics or conspiracy forums. 
DrGreenthumbwpg wrote: 
Quote: David please respond to this... Just read this post 
and respond thoughtfully like you do to bennet's posts and 
you will further your cedibility greatly with those who 
aren't only members at cc. 
David's thoughtful responses to Bennett's posts! Ha! What a 
joke. Ask Chris Bennett if he thinks they were thoughtful. 
The long thread DrGreenthumbwpg compiled contains more of 
the same conspiracy bunk. It is more about the politics of 
cannabis activist competition, than any actual honest, non-
defamatory discussion. 
The problem with Turmel and friends is they viciously attack 
anybody who disagrees with them, ascribe nefarious motives 
to them, distort their replies, and generally defame them in 
any way possible. Sound familiar. It should. Because lately 
David Malmo-Levine has taken on all these tactics in dealing 
with me, Chris Bennett, Alan Young, Cannasat, etc.. I have 
no problem with these discussions occuring ELSEWHERE! Just 
not on the main CC forum "Current News and Events" Because 
these types of insulting discussions only smear all the top 
activists. 
I say let the smearing occur in the politics forum. Because 
politics and positioning and posturing are what all this 
crap really is. Better yet would be to create a "crap-fest 
smearing" forum. Why pollute the Pot Politics forum? It 
would be good to have a place for honest discussion of 
politics. 
Some examples of the smears in the compiled thread: 
Quote: 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. 
Quote: 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. 
Quote: DR: 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. 
Turmel's mass emails have been blocked from almost every 
Yahoo Group I know of. And these Yahoo Groups are controlled 
by a great variety of cannabis and drug reform activists. 
The reason in my opinion is that Turmel attacks so many 
people in the ways I have described. The moderators of these 
groups know many of these people. 
Turmel may have some good ideas. But he just can't resist 
using all the tactics I have mentioned. David Malmo-Levine, 
and everybody else in my opinion, should learn from all this 
that using Turmel's tactics does nothing but cause people to 
lose respect for them. 
Turmel and David should honestly apologize and stop those 
tactics. People are forgiving. Then the honest discussion 
will increase and a lot more progress will be made. 
---
>rtav 
>Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 10:37 AM  
R: Quote: 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.
How is this not an accurate representation of what happened? 
Have you read the transcript and the accounts of his arrest? 
I'm not saying I buy into the implications that his motives 
were impure, but how is this smearing anyone? This is what 
happened. Period. This isn't even judgmental; how you can 
find fault with this statement is beyond me.
Quote: 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.
R: I agree that calling people "narc moles" is incendiary, and 
perhaps insulting, but Turmel has his reasons. He's an 
exceedingly well-written man, so that alone should incline 
you to charitably look past his, ah, desire for colourful 
labels =]. Do you throw out a book because you don't like 
the font the page numbers are written in?
Quote: What could his motive be? Oh wait a second, 
R: This is entirely reasonable _speculation_. Couldn't this 
be his motive? Have you looked inside of Alan Young's head? 
What's it like in there?
A muddled law is no law at all.
"Controlled Drugs and Substances Act:
7.(1) Except as authorized under the regulations, no person 
shall produce a substance included in Schedule I, II, III, 
or IV. 
(2) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) 
(b) where the subject-matter of the offence is cannabis 
(marihuana) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to 
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years" (CDSA)
"32. In the result, the trial Judge (a) declared that s.7(1) 
of the Act to be of no force or effect as it relates to 
marihuana, (b) suspended the declaration for one year, (c) 
granted the Respondent an exemption from the application of 
s.7(1) during the period of the suspension, and (d) stayed 
the production charge (Count 2) as a remedy under s.24(1) of 
the Charter."
and
"57. In addition, as matters now stand s.7(1) has been 
declared of no force and effect by the highest court in 
Alberta."
(http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegcm.txt
NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL made by the crown, 
seeking an order granting leave to appeal to the Supreme 
Court of Canada.) The Supreme Court denied the crown leave 
to appeal: http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegscc.bmp
So, as it stands, the decision of the supreme court of 
alberta in the matter of Regina v. Krieger stands - namely, 
s.7(1) has been declared "of no force and effect", in the 
words of the Crown. It's more than one year after that 
ruling, so, how does s.7(1) stand---does it? Anyone out 
there with any response other than "ask a lawyer"? How does 
it sound -to you-? 
JCT: How come so many non-major activists can explain why 
Krieger stands and so many major activists just can't seem 
to catch on?
---
>eco2man 
>Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 11:13 AM  
ECO: Moderators: I think rtav should be banned from these 
forums. Except for maybe the new "Crap-fest smearing" forum.
Quote: 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.
How is this not an accurate representation of what happened? 
Have you read the transcript and the accounts of his arrest? 
I'm not saying I buy into the implications that his motives 
were impure,... 
ECO: Exactly. The obvious insulting implications. We have 
had this discussion ad nauseum concerning Marc Emery's case. 
And this is Marc Emery's house we are playing in. His 
forums. It is not good to insult one's host in their own 
house. So stop covering for people who are insulting him. I 
noticed you went along with many of the insults of Alan 
Young in other threads. So I know where you are coming from. 
Maybe we need another forum for "Amateur Lawyering" where 
people like you can insult and complain instead of seeking 
honest discussion. And your latest comment about Alan Young 
illustrates this again. 
Quote: This is entirely reasonable _speculation_. Couldn't 
this be his motive? Have you looked inside of Alan Young's 
head? What's it like in there?
---
>rtav 
>Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 11:33 AM  
R: Listen, that was a statement of fact that made no 
judgment. I have read the transcript. It is a guilty plea! 
Please note that I said I did not buy that it was for 
nefarious purposes. There is no direct evidence of that. If 
I can't say Mr. Emery, there is no evidence that your 
confession and guilty plea was other than as you said, 
without risking banning well, I am confused. I can't say 
it's as he says? I can't post quotations that say it's as he 
said? 
I do not really feel like pressing this issue, either. I 
simply replied to what you called a "smear"---it isn't. It's 
a statement of fact. This is what happened, is it not? 
Perhaps characterizing it as a "defense strategy" is 
improper. I apologize for agreeing that was reasonable.
I have tried to stick to the facts in all of my statements--
-quoted words are not my own; they are quoted words. If you 
really want to at best make me into an evil hypocrite 
instead of addressing the issues at hand, by all means, do 
so! 
---
>eco2man 
>Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 11:42 AM  
E: Thanks for getting my point, rtav. I notice though that 
in threads supporting bigotry that the bigots congregate. 
And I notice in threads supporting smearing activists that 
the smearers (is that a word?) and smearing-supporters show 
up. A big crap-fest to spread their feces on top activists. 
JCT: If he finds that the facts leading out make the top 
activists look like they're covered in feces, who would doubt 
someone I can discern is a real expert on the subject. 
ECO: I just wanted you to feel the heat yourself by 
suggesting you get banned. People do get banned here. Rabid 
racists for example, have been banned when they got out of 
hand and racially-insulted somebody we cared about. Such as 
Jonathan Magbie. 
JCT: And of course, John Turmel was banned for getting 4 
times more votes than Marc Emery in their straw poll for the 
Marijuana Party of Canada leadership election in 2002. 
Hurts, eh, Marc to think I got 4 times more votes for you. 
Two years ago before I starting winning big.  
---
>rtav 
>Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 11:49 AM  
R: "Feel the heat"? OK, listen. I am no stranger to censure 
on the internet. I understand that some people are not fully 
committed to the idea that words are vital and any 
restriction on them is unjustified---and I accept that some 
people have that view. It's a completely valid view. It is 
of course not my view, tho, so I would never argue for it. 
But it doesn't bother me when people exercise their rights--
-after all, my right to disagree with them in the public is 
worth the price of censure in private, even if I believe it 
is a price no one is ever entitled to charge. 
But that's really neither here nor there. Again, you're 
making this about me and what I've said and why I should be 
banned.
Let's say _all of this is true_. That still doesn't address 
any of the legal issues here, so, my questions re Krieger 
certainly stand, don't they? I didn't ask for a lawyer's 
opinion---I asked for anyone's. If an average adult can't 
even make an educated guess at what the law means, something 
seems wrong.
---
>eco2man 
>Re: crap-fests and crap cleanup. [Re: rtav] 
>Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 12:41 PM  
Quote:Let's say _all of this is true_. That still doesn't 
address any of the legal issues here, so, my questions re 
Krieger certainly stand, don't they? I didn't ask for a 
lawyer's opinion---I asked for anyone's. If an average adult 
can't even make an educated guess at what the law means, 
something seems wrong.
ECO: No problem with the way you asked this time. But the 
previous posts by you and others should be moved or deleted 
in my opinion. Apologies and/or understanding is good, but 
now the mess needs to cleaned up. The crap still stinks and 
needs to be flushed. And I am not into allowing the crappers 
to just apologize and come back and *** on us another day. 
At some point they need to be banned, in my opinion, if they 
keep it up. 
---
>rtav 
>Re: crap-fests and crap cleanup. [Re: eco2man] 
>Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 04:20 PM  
"But the previous posts by you and others should be moved or 
deleted in my opinion."
R: Why? Because they say inconvenient things? There is 
certainly discussion warranted on this topic, and your 
repeated attempts to derail it and make it about my conduct 
is juvenile. There are legal issues of just a _bit_ of 
importance here. Maybe you could focus on the meat instead 
of the bread? I know it's easier to chew through bread, so I 
don't blame you, but sometimes one just has to chomp down on 
a steak and go to town... 
---
>eco2man 
>Re: crap-fests and crap cleanup.  [Re: rtav] 
>Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 04:51 PM  
ECO: I didn't start the crap-fest. I just pointed it out. 
Now I am trying to clean it up, 
JCT: Like I deduced, and expert at cleaning it if not an 
expert at defining what it is.
ECO: so that the discussion can go back to the honest non-
insulting discussion it was. The only way (in my opinion) to 
do that is to delete the insulting, insinuating, or 
deviously-defamatory posts. I quoted from several people, 
not just you. So don't play the "poor me" game. It's old. 
---
>davidmalmolevine 
>Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 06:37 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..."
DML: Don't accuse me of supporting lawyers. I did most of my 
legal research myself and I gave all my won arguments in all 
the courts.. I encourage others to do so.
JCT: But reading Turmel's research on winning cards gives 
him a head-ache?
"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?"
DML: It's only a waste of time if you don't learn anything. 
I've learned lots. Are you asking me if I regret using the 
"harm principle" argument? Nope, that one should have one - 
something tells me that decisions are made by judges on 
considerations other than the quality of the argument. That 
is one of the valuable lessons my experiences have taught me 
- one of the little lessons that make even failure 
worthwhile.
"If you like feeding bogus lawyers to support fiction than 
you may feel differently"
DML: Again... do you even know who you're talking to? Here - 
proof I saved money on lawyers doing the work myself:
http://www.pot-tv.net/archive/shows/pottvshowse-1956.html
"...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?"
DML: Basically it doesn't matter - it's all academic - 
unless you find a judge who will agree. Screaming won't 
help. But I would help to promote community support for any 
non-screamer who put the "law doesn't exist" argument in 
front of a judge.
"Why continue to act as if the law of the corporation 
applies to you and I??"
DML: Believe me... I don't. That's why I smoke big fatties 
on my internet show and break other pot-related laws out the 
open at rallies.
JCT: So does Marc Emery and he's a narc mole telling the 
country that the courts brought the prohibition he needs to 
profit from his seeds business back to life. 
"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??"
DML: What do you call this? This is the discussion. 
"Quityerdamnbellyaching" as my Norwegian Buppa (Grampa) 
might say.
JCT: Actually, short of guess Turmel's right, David has 
never actually expressed an understanding of why Krieger 
wins like most everyone else does. 
---
>davidmalmolevine 
>Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 07:12 PM 
DML: I tried to read through the thin "cut/paste" discussion 
on this and I got to this quote by a certain JTC and now I 
know for sure that Turmel doesn't know what the fak he's 
talking about.
JTC: "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."
DML: I was around when this happened. Nobody from the big 
clubs out west asked Alan to "fix" the MMAR program - both 
clubs and many on the CCC asked him to challenge it and he 
ignored all of them.
JCT: What does "challenge the MMAR" mean? Did they want to 
challenge the fact some people get exemptions? I'd bet no. 
Did they want to challenge the fact they demanded so many 
doctors to sign. I'd bet yes. Did they want to challenge one 
grower per exemptee? I'd bet yes. Did they want to challenge 
a limit of 3 growers sharing space? I'd bet yes. Did they 
want to challenge no remuneration for growers? I'd bet yes. 
But why challenge the MMAR at all when the CDSA was dead? 
Did they not fall right into Alan Young's trap? If they 
weren't in on the move from start? And it was these 
challenges to the MMAR while the law was dead and the MMAR 
was not needed that gave the court the chance to do the 
Doherty Deed. And our "quasi-legal-expert" who's so proud of 
having gone to the top all on his own can't follow that? 
DML: Nowhere does JTC provide any evidence that ALL the 
clubs asked him to challenge it in the way he did. 
JCT: David's own words were the first evidence I ever found 
that he and the clubs urged Young to challenge the MMAR. I 
thought it was Young's idiot idea or sneaky feat. Now David 
admits that they were the dolts who urged him to challenge 
the MMAR, not the CDSA. Didn't he say Alan endorsed the MMAR 
while they wanted to challenge the MMAR? Didn't David say he 
was in favor of challenging the unneeded MMAR which brought 
it back to life? Did he ever sound happy about challenging 
the CDSA? 
DML: Perhaps it is true that the EASTERN clubs asked him to 
challenge the MMAR in that way, but the critique of the MMAR 
that came from the western clubs was much more penetrating, 
and is reflected in the Canadians for Safe Access critiques 
of the MMAR programs; Canadians for Safe Access Denounce 
Health Canada Interim Cannabis Distribution Plan as 
Unworkable
JCT: And I'd bet they denounced it while there was no 
prohibition that needed it. I'd bet they denounced all the 
unworkable things I've mentioned. David's statement is the 
first I'd heard that the Compassion Clubs urged Young to 
challenge the MMAR while the CDSA prohibition was dead.  
DML: All the above links are to press releases that 
criticize the MMAR. If anything I would say that the 
Compassion Clubs are way ahead of the paralegals in terms of 
doing the research AND outreach to the public.
JCT: Why challenge the MMAR when the prohibition was dead? 
And you're making my point that your criticisms of the MMAR 
were the reason for Young's going to court to fix it. 
DML: The following link is to a page where all the press 
against the MMAR that came from the Canadians for Safe 
Access.  <http://safeaccess.ca/news/index.htm>
JCT: I've not gone to search there but I am only taking 
David's word for it that he urged Alan to challenge the MMAR 
while we all know the CDSA was dead. And we all know that 
once the MMAR was successfully challenged and fixed, they 
say it brought the CDSA back to life. Oops. Did David 
realize the consequences of challenging the MMAR when the 
CDSA was already dead?
DML:I can't think of anyone else in Canada that has done a 
better job of challenging the faulty MMAR program than the 
CSA. And another thing ....
JCT: And when it came time to switch strategies, from 
challenging its badness to challenging its existence, they 
kept right on uselessly challenging its badness, whether by 
ineptitude or guile. So why they challenged the MMAR while 
the CDSA was dead has never yet been dealt with by David. 
DML: Perhaps the reason I haven't jumped on the "law is 
dead" bandwagon and began screaming it at the top of my 
lungs is because:
1) If the judges toss out the very reasonable "harm 
principle" and lump us in with cannibals & animal abusers & 
pimps and incestuous people, what makes you think you can 
find some judges to agree with you that "the law is dead"? 
Unreasonable judges = longshot.
JCT: We have a Supreme Court of Canada Order stating that 
Section 7, and implicitly Section 4, of the CDSA are invalid 
and are trying to bury them. You're still trying to kill 
them on weaker than medical grounds. Sure, your shot at the 
top with no back-up Orders was a longshot but my two shots 
at the top with Krieger and Parker isn't in the same minor 
league. I'm not in the fight for recreational use, I'm in 
the fight for preventative medical use. 
DML: 2) Why would I endorse someone who considered everyone 
who doesn't agree with him right off the bat a Narc (Alyson 
Myrdon????????)?
JCT: First, he'll have to stop exaggerating. I don't call 
"everyone" who doesn't agree narc moles, just mainly the 
people David hangs out with. I never accused Alan Young of 
being a narc mole while he was just disagreeing with me that 
I didn't have enough materials to win the law was dead on 
Terry Parker Day. Justice Pitt disagreed and said it had 
not complied with Parker on time. I accused Young when he 
worked with the Crown to have Parker's Pitt protection set 
aside. That's when I labelled him a Judas Saboteur. And I 
raised on the probabilities of the same applying to his 
close associates. Legal eagles Burstein, Malmo-Levine, et 
al. And I still haven't called David another of Young's narc 
moles even though he works for Narc Emery and his case keeps 
propping up the Government's case against us.
I never accused Alison Myrden of being a narc mole just for 
disagreeing that the law is dead. I accused her when she 
bade-mouthed me to people and saying that those who were 
filing the Turmel defences were getting into trouble and how 
she was going on a national speaking tour on ending 
prohibition when her Hitzig-Myrden case was used to bring it 
back to life. She's had the microphone and never told the 
truth about the death of prohibition once. Actually, so has 
David but he didn't read Turmel. Right. You might not think 
she was a useful narc mole but every prohibitionist out 
there sure appreciates what she and Oops Young have done.
DML:3) Why would I endorse someone who didn't bother to 
phone either of the compassion clubs and fact checking 
before blaming them for asking Alan to "fix" the MMAR 
(something I know for sure they didn't do)? No fact 
checking?
JCT: You are the one told us that they urged Young to 
challenge the broken MMAR while the CDSA was already dead. I 
pointed out that the Crown are now arguing that Hitzig-
Myrden fixed the MMAR to bring the CDSA back to life. Did 
you think of this while you were urging Alan to challenge, 
not endorse, the MMAR? 
DML: Longshot + paranoia (calling Myrdon a Narc) + no fact 
checking = not the sinking boat I wish to attach myself to.
JCT: You've certainly found all the excuses you need not to  
join the fight to bury the law. 
DML: I'm open to being corrected on this ... I hope someone 
can point out where I'm wrong on all that.
JCT: You admitted you urged Young to challenge the MMAR 
while the law CDSA was dead. And it hurts to look foolish. 
And you over-reacted to your error. Instead of admitting 
"oops, I didn't realize the CDSA was already dead because I 
don't read Turmel and I didn't realize that challenging the 
MMAR would bring the CDSA back to life," you lash out that 
the messenger who brought you such unwelcome tidings about 
the effects of your own inept urgings. 
So far, no one has imputed that you knew what you were doing 
when you urged Alan to challenge the MMAR while the CDSA was 
dead. So far, you can plead ignorance or incompetence. But 
trying to diss me for pointing out your error does not do 
your probabilities any good. Taking to long to grasp the 
fundamental nature of Krieger doesn't help for such a guy 
sharp enough to write your own case to the top. Sometimes 
you crow about your prowess and other times you plead your 
sore head. Can't be both ways. 
DML: And one more thing: I admit that many times people use 
the word "kook" instead of reasoned debate... I get called a 
Kook a lot and most of it is undeserved... 
JCT: I got World Internet Kook-of-the-Month July 1995. Once 
again, you're bush league.
DML: but in this case Turmel is certainly acting like one! 
Fact checking JTC - try it out sometime.
JCT: I don't need facts if I can deduce from yours. You told 
me you and they urged Young to challenge the MMAR. I ask why 
if the CDSA was dead. "I don't read Turmel so I was ignorant 
isn't much of an excuse but it's all you got. I presumed you 
had your facts right when you said it. So you'd better 
buckle your mouth and do some homework before you dig 
yourself into a deeper hole. 
---
--
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
Quantcast