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

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

Date: 18 Dec 2004 04:35:32 GMT

>rtav
>Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 08:15 PM

R: OK, I agree that Turmel does a lot of finger pointing and
calling people narcs---but that's neither here nor there to
his legal argument. Assume he's 100% unjustified every time
he calls someone a narc. Even this does not make his legal
arguments unreasonable---and this isn't so much about
arguments against anything on his part as it is about having
the courts and crown recognize what's already true---i.e.,
that the law is dead. What else does Krieger say? The crown
admits this themselves.

JCT: How many days has it been since people have asked David
for his opinion now. He thinks Turmel's right but not clear
enough to start shouting it from the roof-tops like Turmel.
I know, isn't it incredible that the Crown admits that the
law is dead in their secret documents I had to dig up at the
Supreme Court (which puts the court on the spot in the
cover-up, sorry lady) and we still can't get our champions
to admit it too. Imagine, out greatest foe, the Crown
Attorney, screaming Krieger struck down prohibition and our
greatest champions aren't so sure.
It's always just an "if" despite two court orders and the
Crown's statement. Does it sound to you like David's happy
to find out that the law is dead?

R: Do you have an alternate interpretation of Krieger and
the crown memorandum? I mean, if you do, I would be very
happy to hear it! This is all focusing on the font instead
of the writing.

JCT: And when David keeps refusing to face the facts, you
have to ask yourself what it is about the facts that he
doesn't like. Does it sound to you like David's happy to
find out that the law is dead? 

---
>budEluv  
>Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 08:37 PM          
Quote: 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. 
B: Longshot? Agreed. It is very much a longshot. 
JCT: John, the Great Canadian Gambler, calls the Acton 
ruling affirmed by the Alberta Court of Appeal and the 
Supreme Court of Canada a cinch. Even David's under-
estimation of it's potential can't make the Krieger Ace a 
longshot by any standards. The Crown's falling back on all 
fronts, delay their on hope. Long-shot? 
B: That doesn't mean that attacking the CDSA by the throat 
and going for the kill is a bad thing though. Fighting to 
end prohibition, is still fighting to end prohibition. 
JCT: But David never said he wanted to challenge the CDSA 
prohibition system, he said he urged Alan to challenge the 
MMAR permission system. Then when Alan did it, and it back-
fired, he now claims Alan did not do what they instructed 
him to do. When I pointed out he did, it hurt and David 
lashed out instead of oopsing and apologizing. Looks bad. 
B: Gotta keep up with that whole clogging up the courts 
thing ya know?  
Quote: 2) Why would I endorse someone who considered 
everyone who doesn't agree with him right off the bat a Narc 
(Alyson Myrdon????????)? 
B: I don't think any are asking you to do that. Most wanted 
an honest opinion on your interpretation regarding the legal 
arguments. 
JCT: And we're still all waiting for something from the guy 
who's so proud of writing his own case at the Supreme Court. 
I know how it feels, these are 12 and 13. Parker was 11. 
B: The 'rantings and ravings' should be taken with a grain 
of salt and you should try and look past the 'spectacle' and 
address the issues of fact.
JCT: They're not rantings and ravings, they're vicious 
right-on shots exposing their weaknesses in blunt blows. 
Quote: 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? 
B: That anyone would ask DML for a leap of blind faith is 
ludicrous. If they did, they would get the answer in the 
negative, and rightly so. Turmel's guilt by association 
(Young and Myrden) are egomaniac ravings. 
JCT: Sure, I know. The Crown uses Alan Young's Wakeford 
case to hurt us. Oops. Alison Myrden's Hitzig case is used 
to hurt us. Oops. David's case is used to hurt us. Oops. So 
far, I've never implied that David was part of the Hitzig 
conspiracy to challenge the MMAR and resurrect the CDSA. 
Only part of the dupes who asked for it not knowing what it 
meant. He's the one who raises that possibility and I still 
haven't commented on the probability.
 
B: The thing is, his reputation precedes him, and valid and 
factual points don't score as they would if others had 
brought them up.
Quote: Longshot + paranoia (calling Myrdon a Narc) + no fact 
checking = not the sinking boat I wish to attach myself to. 
B:I agree in that context it looks grim, but the 'sinking 
boat' may be going to the Supreme Court to argue the law is 
dead. 
JCT: No one's ever called me a sinking boat before. I seem 
to be the only one with cases still afloat. 
B: Look at the timeline again. WITH the legal cases to 
reference. Look at the orders from the Court(s). Look at the 
arguments presented in those cases in the timeline. A 
frivolous and irrelevant argument shouldn't be before the 
courts, but this isn't one of them. The matter needs to be 
addressed.
JCT: It's no long-shot. It's a cinch. Especially since John 
The Engineer scares them all at the top. 
Quote: I'm open to being corrected on this ... I hope 
someone can point out where I'm wrong on all that. 
B: The fact that there are currently 6 cases / motions 
asking for the courts to acknowledge the fact that there is 
no possession or cultivation laws can only be a good thing. 
Out of those 6 cases, there will be 6 judges. The more we 
keep bringing them before the court, the better the chances 
one might come across a 'reasonable' judge.
JCT: And more and more and more as word gets out. Lots more 
when Mike South gets out on Monday. Notice no press yet. 
Quote: And one more thing: I admit that many times people 
use the word "kook" instead of reasoned debate... I get 
called a Kook alot and most of it is undeserved.... but in 
this case Turmel is certainly acting like one! 
B: This 'kook' that you refer to, is actually the one that 
should be given some of the credit for the over 4,000 stays 
for possession. 
http://www.cannabisculture.com/forums/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=current&Number=737531&fpart=&PHPSESSID=  
I see no reason why anyone should pass up a free shot at 
getting their charges dismissed. Nothing to lose, everything 
to gain. Get out of Jail Free forms 
<http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/mpforms.htm> 
JCT: That's the gist of it. There's nothing to lose by 
presenting the Supreme Court killed the law before going to 
trial. And people are finding out. 
Quote: Fact checking JTC - try it out sometime. 
B: He seemed to have his facts together when he helped Bruce 
Ryan and the Compassion Club get off the hook with the 
Krieger argument. So in reference to your question about the 
Krieger ruling and how binding it is? Ask Bruce Ryan. The 
Crown withdrew the charge, which didn't set a precedent, but 
it certainly made the Crown nervous enough to drop the 
charge.
<http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/ryan2.jpg >
Bruce Ryan CC Thread 
<http://www.cannabisculture.com/forums/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=current&Number=882753&Forum=All_Forums&Words=Bruce%20Ryan&Match=Entire%20Phrase&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Old=6months&Main=882714&Search=true> 
---
>davidmalmolevine 
>Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 11:06 PM
Quote: "OK, I agree that Turmel does a lot of finger 
pointing and calling people narcs---but that's neither here 
nor there to his legal argument."
DML: I agree. It IS here and there when I get accused of not 
promoting the argument - give me someone who is a team 
player who is presenting the argument (someone who won't 
call me a narc the moment I disagree, someone who will give 
the FRIGGIN CSA the benefit of the doubt etc etc etc) and I 
would love to help them out.
JCT: Excuse me but I'm the player-coach. Not only am I the 
toughest player in the legal arena but I'm also the coach 
who plans the strategy and selects the tactics. Excuse me if 
that doesn't qualify as being a "team player." What's your 
team at Cannabis Culture done to fight the prohibition, not 
the permission?
DML: Teaming up with a non-team player seems like more 
trouble than it would be worth 
JCT: Even a non-team player on the 1-yard line? 
DML: - notice how the latest (today) attempt resulted in the 
Judge ignoring the argument?
JCT: That was Pearson's deuces biting the dust. He didn't 
even include the Krieger Memorandum which states the 
prohibition in S.7 has been struck down, nor the Supreme 
Court Order backing it up. All my people have them both. 
Please don't think Kamikaze Pearson's bombless run counts 
for anything.
DML: Now imagine the judge ignores the argument again, 
JCT: A judge hasn't had the chance to ignore it yet but 
once. And the Edward refusal is being short-circuited. 
DMl: PLUS anyone who threw their lot in with Mr. 
Fingerpointer Fact-ignorer will be called a KooK too. 
JCT: Is being called a Kook with Turmel a fate worse than 
jail? Har har har har. If they want out, they won't be so 
worried about their intellectual reputations as David is. But 
after his recent head-aches, an intellectual reputation 
shouldn't be much of a problem much longer.
DML: Perhaps if he was more of a team player there would be 
no risk supporting him, 
JCT: Why support ending CDSA prohibition when you could be called 
a kook. Better support ending the MMAR permission so you can 
hang out with Alan Young and thinkers in the movement. I'm 
the quarterback, sorry if I'm you don't like my play-calling 
but I engineer the artillery and call the plays. Parker and 
Krieger Aces, that is all anyone's getting. That's why 
everyone's feeling so good about their hands. It's easy to 
play only Aces.
DML:but he presents himself as too crazy even for me to back 
him up. 
JCT: So far, I haven't actually read anything to back up his 
continued calling me of names. 
DML: And that's saying a lot when the guy who once had green 
dreadlocks thinks you're too much of a wingnut to get 
behind.
JCT: Narc moles aren't always sheep-dipped to black. 
DML: I will vocally support anyone (aside from John T.) who 
presents the "law is dead" argument - I'm just betting it 
will continue to be ignored.
JCT: And since no other team has come up with that legal 
artillery yet, I guess David's consigned to the sidelines 
until he can challenge the MMAR again. 
DML: I can't be bothered to help the guy who calls everyone 
a Narc 
JCT: Same cheap exaggeration all the time. I don't call 
everyone a narc. I call people who help the narc cause and 
do not stop when it's pointed out narcs. I look at the 
results of what they did and if it hurts us and helps the 
prohibitionists, like people who urged Alan Young to 
challenge the MMAR while the CDSA was dead, then I increase 
the probability they're rats. The fact you've never 
apologized for urging Alan to challenge the MMAR while the 
CDSA was dead remains a glaring hint. 
DML:  and who won't call the FRIGGIN clubs up to double-
check... 
JCT: I took your word for it that you and the clubs urged 
Alan to "challenge the faulty MMAR" while the CDSA was 
invalid. I'd never made that inference before until you 
admitted your participation in getting the MMAR challenged 
by Alan Young. 
DML: or even bother to read any of the press releases 
against the MMAR that were on line and available from the 
CSA.
JCT: Are they going to tell me that you did not want to 
challenge the MMAR while the CDSA was invalid? No, they'll 
probably mention the very points Alan got fixed. Too many 
doctors, too many conditions, etc. I won't even look and 
I'll bet that at least 2 of the 5 conditions that the court 
cut to fix the MMAR were conditions you complained about! 
I'll bet David $20 blind that 2 of the 5 slashed conditions 
had been objected to by David or the clubs.
"Assume he's 100% unjustified every time he calls someone a 
narc. Even this does not make his legal arguments 
unreasonable"
DML: Unreasonable? No. 
JCT: Just not reasonable enough to check out.
".... and this isn't so much about arguments against 
anything on his part as it is about having the courts and 
crown recognize what's already true---i.e., that the law is 
dead. What else does Krieger say? The crown admits this 
themselves."
DML: Good luck with anyone who attempts it 
JCT: But David's not going to help spread the word the law is 
dead. Count on it. Sounds like he's part of the Emery law is 
still alive schtick.
DML: - I might use it myself if I got busted for possession, 
JCT: Only when he gets busted. Until then, let the others be 
jailed. David's not telling them.  
DML: but it's not my first line of defense (I've got one in 
mind that is way more educational and principled - less "win 
by technicality").
JCT: Har har har har. He's got a better defence than Parker 
and Krieger killed the prohibition and we want the funeral? 
I'd bet he's going to try to kill the dead law all over 
again. 
"Do you have an alternate interpretation of Krieger and the 
crown memorandum? I mean, if you do, I would be very happy 
to hear it!"
DML: Nahhhh... I think Turmel is right - I just think he's 
too much of an ***.
JCT: So much of an *** that he won't tell his friends ow 
to get out of jail, I'm sure. It really must hurt to find 
out his urging Young to challenge the MMAR while the CDSA 
was dead helped bring the law back to life. Oops. David 
should learn that you must always acknowledge your strategic 
mistakes right away, say "oops sorry" and then get on with 
it. He's sounding like a guilty man rather than a sorry man 
who knows the error of what he did. Doesn't sound like he's 
aware yet of what he did. 
"This is all focusing on the font instead of the writing." 
DML: Sometimes being a nice guy is the difference between 
the Kooks you support and the kooks you shun. 
JCT: For some, being right's the only criterion. Who cares 
what reason Davids' got for not supporting the good fight. 
It'll sound hollow once the war is over. "I didn't join the 
team fighting the good fight because I didn't like the 
quarterback" won't wash. 
DML: I guess I refrain from calling too many people "narcs" 
and I DO check my facts before I go public on things and I 
try and work with the rest of the activists... 
JCT: And you presume I don't? As I've pointed out, the only 
people I've ever accused of being narc moles are those who 
have done things that have hurt the movement. And it's 
because I've documented them all (and you didn't read about 
them no doubt) that make the attacks hurt so much. And even 
though your loss is now being thrown in our faces in court, 
I still never imputed evil intent to David. It's this recent 
refusal to acknowledge his "oops" that raises the 
probability that he's not working for Emery without being in 
on what the bad guys are doing. 
DML:therefore my fellow drug-peace activists allow me my 
kookieness and even support me from time to time... who 
knows, that might even work for the engineer.
JCT: You go ahead and keep alleging I call everyone a narc 
to save you having to check into my accusations. "If he 
accuses everyone, some must be baseless so why bother 
checking?" won't wash. But those people who know how 
carefully I launch my accusations will have to wonder why 
the continual exaggeration. 
---
>houseboy 
>Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 05:07 AM
H: Hi David and all, not sure if this is of any benefit,but 
these excerpts are taken from my memorandum that is 
currently waiting for a date in Federal Court of Appeal. 
Also a small correction, turmel is JCT, not JTC. Let me know 
what you think. John
PART III. SUBMISSIONS
C: Is the MMAR still unconstitutional even if we accept the 
Hitzig ruling in October 2003?
D: Is the Crown/justice system breaching their duties by 
laying and proceeding with offences not known to law?
G: Is Parliament the only legislative body that can enact 
legislation under the CDSA? Can the courts only abrogate? 
JCT: Good questions. What's the name of the case? 
H: 16. In R v. Parker (Ontario Court of Justice), the 
Honourable J. Sheppard wrote: "It is ordered pursuant to 
Section 52, that Section 4(1) and Section 7(1) of the CDSA 
be read down so as to exempt from its ambient persons 
possessing or cultivating cannabis (a schedule II substance) 
for their personal medically approved use." This order was 
upheld again in R v. Parker (Court of Appeal for Ontario) 
Docket No. C28732.
17. The government, in reaction to Parker, established the 
Medical Marijuana Access Regulations (MMAR), which has not 
yet been constitutionally sound, as a result, cannabis was 
removed from Schedule II of the CDSA.
JCT: I wish the letter of the law argument holds up at the 
top. My neck is on the line and I'm still going to have to  
fight to get my jury. I notice all the Dakine people got the 
choice, only Turmel scares the Crown out of a jury. But I 
won't take a non-math graduate shyster single judge without 
a major war yet to come.  
H: 18. This effectively removed cannabis from the Schedule 
in the CDSA, creating an offence not known to law for 
possession, cultivation and trafficking. 
JCT: Sounds good. I see the deletion from the Schedule as a 
necessary effect when they did not include the exemption 
right in Section 4. Sure hope so. 
H: In the Parker decision, paragraph 210, "Accordingly, I 
would vary the remedy granted by the trial judge and declare 
the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 of the Controlled Drugs 
and Substances Act to be invalid. I would suspend the 
declaration of invalidity for twelve months from the release 
of these reasons. The respondent is exempt from the 
marihuana prohibition in s. 4 of the Controlled Drugs and 
Substances Act during the period of suspended invalidity for 
the possession of marihuana for his medical needs."
Regina v. Parker, 2000 OJ No C28732 (O.C.A.)
19. Due to the Parker and Krieger rulings, cannabis was 
removed from Schedule II in the CDSA. This includes 
possession, cultivation and trafficking in the substance 
cannabis.
R v. Parker, 2000 OJ No C28732 (Ont. C.A.)
R v. Krieger, 2003 ABCA 85
R v. Krieger, Supreme Court of Canada, (Crim) (Alta) (29569) 
December 18, 2003 
JCT: Where's he get Dec 18? I thought it was Dec 23?
H: 20. As of August 1, 2001, cannabis offences under Section 
4(1) and 7(1) of the CDSA are "no longer known to law".
JCT: Hooray. Another Krieger challenge going on that we 
didn't even know about. 
H: (E) Breach of Duty
21. The Appellant, John Thomas Cook, states that after 
numerous attempts to rectify the shortcomings at all levels 
of government and crown agencies, which have been of little 
value. I believe that this amounts to an abuse of power.
22. All public servants are sworn to uphold the Canadian 
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and have repeatedly failed to 
do so.
(i) The Hitzig decision, in my opinion, even taken as 
relevant, has not been implemented by the federal 
government" even though the court's order was to have 
immediate effect. Only Parliament can legislate cannabis 
back into the Schedules (once they have been removed by the 
courts). The courts can only abrogate.
JCT: Love that word "abrogate." Courts can only abrogate. 
Someone's got to put these uppity judges in the places.
H: C: Is the MMAR still unconstitutional even if we accept 
the Hitzig ruling in October 2003?
The Order set forth by the Court which would make the MMAR 
constitutionally sound have not yet been implemented. There 
were five items to be amended (s. 4(2)(c), s. 7, s. 34(2), 
s. 41(b) and s. 54). In the Canada Gazette, Part II, SOR 
2003-387 3 December 3, 2003, the proposed amendments do not 
include three of the five items. Therefore, the MMAR are 
still unconstitutional.
JCT: But such a "gimme" from Health Canada makes me leery. 
They knew they were losing Krieger, why not have the loss 
look like it came from a reason they can now fix? And it's 
connected to Hitzig-Myrden and that smells all by itself. 
H: D: Is the Crown/justice system breaching their duties by 
laying and proceeding with offences not known to law?
All public servants are sworn to uphold the Canadian Charter 
of Rights and Freedoms and have repeatedly failed to do so.
JCT: I think Sumbitch David and brother Harvey Frankel and 
Lara Speirs should spend some time in jail for mischief and 
genocide.
---
>elagabalus 
>Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 08:29 AM
E: I want to thank those who've contributed to my 
understanding of Turmel's significance in the fight we're 
all in against shameless persecutors. DrGreenthumbwpg, 
Orchidman, rtav, source, houseboy and breefairy seem to 
think Turmel has a point that the law is dead. Several 
mentioned the Kreiger and Parker decisions to support their 
belief. Steve Kubby seems to think so too. That's how this 
thread got started.
Eco2man and David don't like his style so they don't look 
for substance. Parker and Krieger are what Turmel's about, 
so if people don't address his arguments concerning those 
decisions, they're just messing with the focus.
Turmel has two players coming up to bat with real Kreiger 
wood: Pierre Drouin in Cochrane tomorrow and Mike South in 
Toronto on Monday. We'll see whose arguments have substance 
- that is, if this forum is still open. 
JCT: Actually, Mike South's Krieger argument doesn't play 
Monday. Only the fact he's no threat to society pending the 
appeal on any argument. Krieger comes up at his appeal. The 
quash motions will all hit first.  
---
>davidmalmolevine 
>Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 08:40 AM
E: "Eco2man and David don't like his style so they don't 
look for substance. Parker and Krieger are what Turmel's 
about, so if people don't address his arguments concerning 
those decisions, they're just messing with the focus."
DML: It's not fair to say I don't feel his argument has 
substance. I've never said that. I think he's right, but 
it's not a matter of "liking his style" - more like "David 
doesn't think lending support to a long-shot who calls 
everyone a narc and believes everyone is in a grand 
conspiracy against him is smart. 
JCT: Let's skip abolishing prohibition because David doesn't 
like the guy leading the charge. David would prefer lending 
support to more team-oriented person who makes the same 
argument. Back to his exaggeration about me calling everyone 
a narc, not just those who have acted like it. 
DML: I'm all for "the law is dead". His argument DOES have 
substance. I even like his funny hat.
JCT: A construction helmet is "funny?" 
DML: But I just can't fully get behind someone who calls 
sick people "narcs" for not believing in him, 
or who thinks 
all the compassion clubs are there to get sick people to 
sign up for a fuct-up MMAR program. 
JCT: Luckily, I never said that but when their exaggerations 
reach epic proportions, then we have to look deeper into 
why. I don't think David liked finding out that his urging 
Alan Young to challenge the MMAR while the CDSA was dead 
helped bring the CDSA back to life and rather than admit his 
error, he's throwing out chaff. 
DML:If this guy is so smart, why couldn't he have figured 
out the Compassion Club's perspective on the MMAR from the 
CSA press releases and media?
JCT: I never read them. I only accepted your statement that 
you and they urged Alan Young to challenge the MMAR while 
there was need to. You said it. I believed it and criticized 
you and those who urged with you for being fooled by Young 
into paying for the opposite of what you wanted or for being 
in on it with Young and getting exactly what you knew you 
wanted. 
DML: Why would he make the assumption that the Clubs were 
asking Alan to tweak the MMAR instead of destroy it?
Somebody answer me that.
JCT: Why would you need to urge it to be destroyed when the 
CDSA was already invalid? Answer that. 
---
--
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