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

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

Date: 18 Dec 2004 04:39:55 GMT

>DrGreenthumbwpg
>Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 08:49 AM
DR: 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.

Actually David that is the problem he is pointing out. The
CDSA was already declared unconstitutional as per parker
because there was no satisfactory exemption system for those
that needed cannabis for medical reasons.

The regs lacked the law that they were exempting people
from. It was like an exemption from a law that was already
of no force and effect because it was unconstitutional.

The judge, Pitt confirmed that. That is when alan helped the
crown get pitt's decision set aside and got the attack on
the mmar combined with john and terry's attack on the cdsa.

It gave the opportunity to the judges to tinker with the
regs and decide what would be constitutional. The challenge
of the mmar were totally unnecessary as the judge had
already ruled they were inadequate and did not satisfy the
parker order and were not even enacted in time to save the
cdsa if they had been adequate.

The judges also said that regs were not good enough because
they could be changed on a whim as they only needed to
printed in the canada gazzette. Parliament still hasn't
enacted a law but alan and his crew (myrden included) are
still pushing the idea that the law has been passed by
judges.

Note: Even if it was possible for them to have resurrected
the law health cnada has not complied with the things the
judges said would make the law unconstitutional so the
minute they re-instated the parts of the mmar that the
judges said made it unconstitutional the cdsa is once more
unconstitutional and of no force or effect.

as far as deleting posts and banning people from posting,
that is the chicken***'s way of not answering the critics.
maybe eco2man should be banned for calling DML a moron?
Why would anyone even suggest such a prohibitionist tactic?
Are you a chicken*** or do you have some more nefarious
reason for not wanting forum members to see all sides of the
issue? Just because someone is being a prick doesn't make
the issues they raise illegitimate.

You call John a kook and say he should be banned for
accusing Alison of colluding with the enemy. Unless there is
some proof that she is not doing so then you are insulting
him with no proof so you are no better.

JCT: Her involvement in the Hitzig resurrection and her
opposition to me all the way was all the proof I needed.

DR: I have also heard that she has ties to cannasat. I did
not hear that from john either. If she is going to publicly
support Alan and the governments spin that Hitzig resurected
prohibition that she should expect to be scrutinized.

JCT: And of course, the purpose of her national speaking
tour is to explain to people how the law is back alive. Real
useful to us "the law is dead" crowd.

DR: How hard is it to believe that an ex prison guard may
still harbour some prohibitionist ideals?

JCT: When you hear the cheers from the prohibitionist
benches for her Hitzig victory resurrecting the prohibition,
you have to wonder.

DR: I won't pass judgment on her till I know more but i
won't discount the possibility either. The forums are a
place for us to discuss any current events and developments,
and our suspicions should be discussed here to try and bring
out the FACTS. Stifling the discussion only helps keep the
facts hidden. Your suggestion of banning and censoring the
posts makes me wonder just what you feel you need to hide.

People reading these posts are perfectly able to discern
what is based in fact and what is speculation, or do you
doubt the intelligence of all the forum members and not just
DML? 

---
>james101 
>Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 09:31 AM
DML wrote: "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")." David, would you be so kind as to 
share YOUR first line of defense then, so that we can all 
use it to defend ourselves and to defeat prohibition?
---
>davidmalmolevine 
>Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 09:31 AM
DML: Sure. First I would summarize where we have gotten so 
far. The only gain out of my Supreme Court visit would be 
paragraph 100 of their decision in which they said basically 
the harms that come with cannabis abuse can be mitigated 
through proper use. Those aren't the words - the whole thing 
is located in the counter-counterspin forum under "Supreme 
BS". 
JCT: The point is he's still at proving the law is bad. I 
dropped that the moment I realize the law was dead and 
getting it declared buried, not declared bad, was the new 
goal. I can't count how many times I've explained how 
everything changed once we had orders declaring the law is 
dead and we had to change strategies from "it's bad" to 
"it's dead." Too bad David never read my stuff. 
DML: Next, I would put someone on the witness stand who knew 
what the legal term "Genocide" was and could define it for 
the court. (There IS a definition - the United Nations anti-
genocide treaty is the one I use.)
JCT: I guess the one I use from the Canadian Criminal 
Code isn't good enough for Canadian courts? 
DML: Then after that I would put an anthropologist on the 
stand and define "culture". Then I would go into the anti-
Genocide treaty (1952? 1956?) and argue that international 
law forbids what is currently happening to our culture.
Finally, I would use section 8(3) of the criminal code 
(Necessity) to defend whatever non-violent mode of protest 
led me into court in the first place. Howzat?
JCT: Compared to pointing at the corpses of 4 epileptics a 
day from the epilepsy.ca statistics like I did, not very 
good. 
---
>Orchidman 
>Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 03:21 PM
David, I find it interesting that you would use the argument 
of genocide. John Turmel has a very good genocide argument 
using the Canadian definition of genocide and shocking 
statistics of dead epileptics. You should take the time to 
read it, it's included in his supreme court paperwork I 
think. A lot of people called Turmel kooky for raising the 
genocide argument, so now I wonder if they will now call you 
because of it. 
---
>davidmalmolevine  [Re: DrGreenthumbwpg 
>Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 08:28 PM
>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."
DR: Actually David that is the problem he is pointing out. 
The CDSA was already declared unconstitutional as per parker 
because there was no satisfactory exemption system for those 
that needed cannabis for medical reasons. The regs lacked 
the law that they were exempting people from. It was like an 
exemption from a law that was already of no force and effect 
because it was unconstitutional. The judge, Pitt confirmed 
that. That is when alan helped the crown get pitt's decision 
set aside and got the attack on the mmar combined with john 
and terry's attack on the cdsa. It gave the opportunity to 
the judges to tinker with the regs and decide what would be 
constitutional."
DML: If you and him are stating that VICS and the BCCCS 
ASKED Alan to do that, that would be a lie. 
DR: "The challenge of the mmar were totally unnecessary as 
the judge had already ruled they were inadequate and did not 
satisfy the parker order and were not even enacted in time 
to save the cdsa if they had been adequate."
DML: That was the CSA's argument as well - the MMAR was 
inadequate. Read their press releases and media coverage I 
provided.
JCT: So should you challenge the CDSA because the MMAR were 
inadequate like Turmel was doing or challenge the MMAR? 
That's the issue here. David and group did not say they 
wanted to challenge the CDSA because the MMAR did not work. 
They said they wanted to challenge the MMAR to prove what? 
DR: "The judges also said that regs were not good enough 
because they could be changed on a whim as they only needed 
to printed in the canada gazzette. Parliament still hasn't 
enacted a law but alan and his crew (myrden included) are 
still pushing the idea that the law has been passed by 
judges."
DML: JCT is talking as if ALL the clubs are part of Alan's 
"crew" - not so.
JCT: I'm talking as if what I read David say about the clubs 
urging Alan was true. Whether he suckered them or they knew 
did not enter the discussion. So far, I've made criticized 
David and them as dupes, not moles. But moles is always a 
greater possibility for the guys who were there to keep the 
media away from me.
DR: "Note: Even if it was possible for them to have 
resurected the law health cnada has not complied with the 
things the judges said would make the law unconstitutional 
so the minute they re-instated the parts of the mmar that 
the judges said made it unconstitutional the cdsa is once 
more unconstitutional and of no force or effect. 
JCT: That's the Health Canada "gimme" when they knew we 
couldn't lose with Krieger. Wouldn't it be nice to have the 
CDSA declared dead because of the gimme to help Sumbitch 
David Frankel get off the hook for not telling the cops 
about losing Krieger. 
DR: "as far as deleting posts and banning people from 
posting, that is the chicken***'s way of not answering the 
critics."
DML: Are you accusing me of doing either? I've done no such 
thing.
DR: "....maybe eco2man should be banned for calling DML a 
moron? Why would anyone even suggest such a prohibitionist 
tactic?"
DML: Where do I say "ban eco2man"?
DR: "Are you a chicken*** or do you have some more 
nefarious reason for not wanting forum members to see all 
sides of the issue?"
DML: Please. Quote me where I endorse censorship. This 
should take a while - I've NEVER endorsed the silencing of a 
voice.
DR: "Just because someone is being a prick doesn't make the 
issues they raise illegitimate. You call John a kook"
DML: That I did. He accused the clubs of asking Alan to fix 
the MMAR when their dozen press releases on the subject 
(CSA) indicate that they believed it was "inadequate" 
JCT: But they did not challenge the CDSA. So what did they 
want challenged if not the CDSA and not the MMAR? 
DML: - Alan did what he did DESPITE what the western clubs 
told him to do - not because of it. Blaming all the clubs 
for what Alan did IS kooky.
JCT: I'm blaming them for not challenging the CDSA. 
DR: "and say he should be banned for accusing Alyson of 
colluding with the enemy."
DML: Where do I say "ban"? You're putting words into me 
falking mouth, buddy.
JCT: It's the Ecoman, not the Dr. 
DR: "Unless there is some proof that she is not doing so 
then you are insulting him with no proof so you are no 
better."
DML: Proof that who isn't doing what?
DR: "I have also heard that she has ties to cannasat."
DML: Who has ties to cannasat?
DR: "I did not hear that from john either. If she is going 
to publicly support Alan and the governments spin that 
Hitzig resurected prohibition that she should expect to be 
scrutinized. How hard is it to believe that an ex prison 
guard may still harbour some prohibitionist ideals?"
DML: If you mean Alyson, she's not a monopolist. If Alan led 
her astray, she will be the first to quit his "crew" when 
she finds out the truth. Perhaps you Alan critics would 
reach more of his "crew" if you weren't so quick to call 
people "narcs" - that's usually reserved for drug war 
predators, not "sick folks who didn't know any better". 
DR: "I won't pass judgment on her till I know more"
DML: You should have done that for me, too.
DR: "... but i won't discount the possibility either. The 
forums are a place for us to discuss any current events and 
developments, and our suspicions should be discussed here to 
try and bring out the FACTS. Stifling the discussion only 
helps keep the facts hidden."
DML: Where do I falking say "ban" anyone??????
JCT: I have no idea why David thinks he's the one who 
proposed Ecoman's censorship. Didn't he read previous posts?
DR: "Your suggestion of banning and censoring the posts 
makes me wonder just what you feel you need to hide."
DML: I'm missing that post completely. Quote me, straw-man 
builder.
JCT: Funny when they get their lines crossed. 
DR: "People reading these posts are perfectly able to 
discern what is based in fact and what is speculation, or do 
you doubt the intelligence of all the forum members and not 
just DML?"
DML: You're obviously having a hard time discerning the 
concept of "lack of endorsement" with "censorship". Next 
time you accuse ANYONE of censorship - have the quote you 
are refering to at the top of the page so everyone will know 
what the fak yer talking about.
---
>eco2man 
>Crapfest escalates. Crap-slinger shootout.  
>Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 08:56 PM
ECO: Moderators and all. This interaction below between 
David and someone else illustrates the problem of allowing 
defamatory "crap-slinging" to show its ugly head at all. It 
ends in one big non-informative confusing crapfest that puts 
people off from these forums and these issues. 
Quote: "I did not hear that from john either. If she is 
going to publicly support Alan and the governments spin that 
Hitzig resurected prohibition that she should expect to be 
scrutinized. How hard is it to believe that an ex prison 
guard may still harbour some prohibitionist ideals?" 
If you mean Alyson, she's not a monopolist. If Alan led her 
astray, she will be the first to quit his "crew" when she 
finds out the truth. 
Perhaps you Alan critics would reach more of his "crew" if 
you weren't so quick to call people "narcs" - that's usually 
reserved for drug war predators, not "sick folks who didn't 
know any better". 
ECO: Contrast this crap-slinger shootout thread with the 
non-defamatory thread called "Possession laws not legit, 
marijuana advocate says" 
http://www.cannabisculture.com/forums/showflat.php?Number=989668
It is much more informative on the same issues. 
It is one thing to state general opinions of people such as 
"kook" "idiot" "moron" and so on. 
It is entirely different to call people narcs, monopolists, 
collaborators, racists, etc.. For those specific accusations 
proof is needed or those posts should be deleted. And people 
who insist on posting those type of posts more than once 
should be banned in my opinion. 
I volunteer to be a moderator here. 
JCT: Har har har har har har har har. 
ECO: It is not difficult to tell what a defamatory type of 
accusation is. 
JCT: They need Ecoman at CBC, maybe CNN. 
ECO: It is one that could be taken to court if printed in a 
major media. This started out as an interesting thread. But 
the problems started when the compilation of Turmel stuff 
was posted. 
I believe it is the responsibility of the person who posts 
Turmel's stuff to edit out the defamatory accusations-
without-proof. If that person keeps posting unedited Turmel 
stuff, then that person should be banned in my opinion. 
---
>davidmalmolevine 
>Re: Crapfest escalates. Crap-slinger shootout. 
"I volunteer to be a moderator here... If that person keeps 
posting unedited Turmel stuff, then that person should be 
banned in my opinion. "
DMl: Moderators are here to encourage debate, not silence 
it. If you ban everyone who insults anyone else a) we won't 
know why people have a beef with others and b) we won't know 
what else they have to contribute and c) we won't be able to 
solve whatever problem is at issue.
Banning, in my opinion, should only be for people who spew 
nothing but vile hatred and bad language and contribute 
nothing to the furthering of knowledge, and who all attempts 
at reasoning with has failed.
The way you talk, people are going to be banned for "insult 
by disagreement" - you're too quick to silence others. You 
don't have my vote for moderator status. Turmel may not be a 
"team player" but he doesn't fall into the "ban him 
instantly" category.
---
>eco2man 
>Re: Crapfest escalates. Crap-slinger shootout.  
>Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 09:41 PM
Quote: Turmel may not be a "team player" but he doesn't fall 
into the "ban him instantly" category.
ECO: As usual you distort what I say, David. Scroll up a few 
inches to what I said and see what I mean. It is constantly 
amazing to me that you will reply to me and have what I said 
right in front of you, and then you distort it. When you 
reply to someone what they said is on the same page as the 
box for typing in your reply. I didn't say "ban him 
instantly" I said that when people post his remarks they 
should edit out the defamatory accusations-without-proof, 
you dumbass kook. 
--------------------
>davidmalmolevine 
>Date: Dec 16 2004 09:52 PM  
"I said that when people post his remarks they should edit 
out the defamatory accusations-without-proof, you dumbass 
kook."
DML: I would rather know what lies people are saying than 
try and determine ahead of time what is the lie and what is 
the truth. Censoring selectively and banning are more 
similar than different.
---
>DrGreenThumb
>Re: BC Court Case wins on "Law too muddled" argument!!  
>Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 10:09 PM  
DML: "If you and him are stating that VICS and the BCCCS 
ASKED Alan to do that, that would be a lie." 
DR: I am certainly not stating that and i don't think he is 
either but i can't speak for turmel. I think the compassion 
club model would have had the perfect opportunity to succeed 
in a legal market. I suspect that Alan convinced some people 
to go along with it, after all he is a lawyer so he needs a 
"defendant" to challenge the regulations right? 
Why challenge the regulations when the law had been declared 
unconstitutional anyway? There was no law to be exempted 
from, hence the 4000 judicial stays. 
I honestly think the compassion club people were just 
looking to protect themselves and get screwed the hardest if 
the cannasat monopoly goes thru. They have the experience 
and the clientell already, that would have been tough for 
any private company to compete with in a legal market. I 
think they were tricked into thinking he was looking out for 
their best interests when he was looking after his own best 
interests.
DML: "JCT is talking as if ALL the clubs are part of Alan's 
"crew" - not so."
DR: I didn't know he was suggesting that the clubs wanted 
alan to do this, i may have missed something in that respect 
but i believe john supports compassion clubs or anyone else 
being able to sell legal cannabis for any reason.
DML: "as far as deleting posts and banning people from 
posting, that is the chicken***'s way of not answering the 
critics."
"Are you accusing me of doing either? I've done no such 
thing"
DR: No, lol I was directing that comment to eco2man for 
calling you a moron and then calling on the moderators to 
delete posts he didn't like or kill the thread or something 
like that because he said we were crap spewing and crapping 
on good activists for even having this discussion on the 
possible monopolization of the sacred herb.
DML: "Where do I say "ban eco2man"?
DR: You didn't, I was suggesting that if he thought others 
should be banned for discussions he considered insulting 
then by his own standard he should have been banned for 
insulting you. He certainly didn't have facts to back up 
that you were in fact an actual moron but he said it in a 
public forum. (It was supposed to be sacrasm) I think by now 
you understand that it was eco2man not DML that i was 
acusing of endorsing censorship. Either I misrepresented 
what i meant to say or you just misunderstood but it was not 
you the second half of that post i made was about. 
---
>davidmalmolevine  
>Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 10:32 PM
Marc Emery and I have been arguing "cultural genocide" since 
at least 1996 if not before. 
JCT: It's a lot easier to prove "genocide of epileptics" with 
corpses than "genocide of cultural" with what? I wasn't 
aware that there was as law against the genocide of culture. 
I always thought it was genocide of people. 
DML: I did two shows on the subject for PTV and they seem to 
have been appreciated:
http://www.pot-tv.net/archive/shows/pottvshowse-3096.html
http://www.pot-tv.net/archive/shows/pottvshowse-2119.html
JCT: And he never knew the definition from the Criminal Code 
of Canada? 
---
>elagabalus  
>Date: Fri Dec 17 2004 12:02 AM
E: David, A half a dozen people are trying to have a 
reasonable discussion here, and you keep falling into the 
exterminator's (the moderator wannabee) trap. You even took 
the last half of DrGreenthumb's post personally - although 
he was clearly speaking to "he-who-wants-us-all-to-stop-
talking-about-this"
You started a thread about the law being too muddled. 
Eco2man keeps changing the title, so now you're arguing 
about "***". That's what he keeps changing the title to.
Never mind his pr tactics - let's get back to your original 
thread. Even though the story was a year old, it IS Current 
News and the Events ARE unfolding.
You and Turmel have both raised the "genocide" argument, and 
I certainly support it. It's not just epilectics who have 
died because of the conspiracy between politicians, press, 
police and the judiciary.
You seem to agree with Turmel about the law too, although 
you haven't really mentioned Krieger, one of his aces.
DML: "It's not fair to say I don't feel his argument has 
substance. I've never said that."
E: Okay. Let's say you didn't address the main point - his 
arguments concerning Kreiger and Parker, which certainly 
relates to the topic of this thread.
Anyway, you seem to be in agreement with us. Why do you want 
to help eco2man to change the focus. He's talking about 
crap. 
---
>eco2man  
>Defamation versus general insults.  
>Date: Fri Dec 17 2004 02:12 AM   
ECO: Moderators. Please read the suggestions here. 
Eco man: "I said that when people post his remarks they 
should edit out the defamatory accusations-without-proof, 
you dumbass kook." 
David: I would rather know what lies people are saying than 
try and determine ahead of time what is the lie and what is 
the truth. 
ECO: Censoring selectively and banning are more similar than 
different. 
Of course you think that. Having succeeded (by your 
accusations-without-proof) recently in having 2 threads on 
Cannasat locked and/or moved by the moderators. One has been 
moved by the moderators to the Pot Politics forum. 
You, and others, are again smearing Alan Young of Cannasat. 
Without proof. Others are smearing Alison Myrden, Marc 
Emery, etc.. Others are quoting Turmel in smearing Alison, 
Marc, and many others. 
Therefore I think that this thread should also be moved. Or 
the offending posts deleted. Since you started this thread, 
maybe you should be given the choice. 
But I don't think you and some others in this thread are 
capable of having a discussion without smearing people 
without proof. 
JCT: I have always provided evidence of the dirty deeds 
before calling people names. That's calling them names hurts so 
much, because they fit so right on. Remember how my saying 
Emery confessed and pleaded guilty was considered a smear 
until it was pointed out that that is what he did? When the 
truth is taken as a smear, what can be inferred? 
ECO: And I doubt moderators want to constantly have to 
delete the smearing posts, then I suggest to the moderators 
that this thread be moved. That is not censorship. 
All forums have topics, and moderators set the rules of each 
forum. I suggest that this "current news and events" forum 
meet stricter standards since it is the forum most outsiders 
see first, and it is one of the busier CannabisCulture.com 
forums. 
---
>Orchidman  
>Date: Fri Dec 17 2004 03:42 AM
O: Here is a recent re-print from Turmel. As you can see 
there is no mud slinging. Noreen Evers is using the Turmel 
paperwork in her own defence in a BC court. She knows the 
stuff backwards now and has even dug up a couple of good 
additions to the information that Turmel has included in his 
work. 
It's not that Turmel isn't a team player. He has Noreen 
Evers handing out the kits in BC and other people handing 
out the "Quash Kits". A lot of people believe in his work 
and support him, so he has a team. There is a press clipping 
below which John and Noreen discuss. 
This is contemporary and in process. Her case was put off 
till March and they have figured out a way to speed it up. 
Nobody needs to deal with John Turmel if they are afraid of 
his reputation. I'm sure Noreen Evers would be glad to help 
anyone who asked.
>Press of Noreen's day in B.C. court. 
----
>rtav  
>Date; Fri Dec 17 2004 05:37 PM   
DML: "I think Turmel is right."
R: OK. If you think he's right, why isn't a simple motion to 
quash the recommended first line of defense? It can be 
easily served without an attorney. If it's not accepted, 
well, you're no worse off for having done it, are you? 
JCT: Don't forget the Notice of Prohibition next, then the 
constitutional motion like Parker and Krieger next, then on 
to the trial with the lawyer. 
R: Aside from that, though, if it was accepted, doesn't it 
make you a _bit_ uneasy that the police and crown are 
harassing people over DEAD LAWS?
JCT: We've got them on the defensive. I guess it's not a 
mode of action that these marijuana reformers are used to, 
offence. Sure, I've been called very offensive, maybe the 
most offensive person in the world. Maybe. 
R: I have no idea how you think that is a "technicality". 
JCT: Parker and Krieger both presented major cases to prove 
that the law was bad. Why is it called a technicality to now 
force them to conclude it's dead?
R: Have I misunderstood? 
JCT: Depends on whose side he's on but probably not. 
---
>Whirlwind  
>Date: Fri Dec 17 2004 07:44 PM
"I have no idea how you think that is a "technicality". 
W: Speaking only for myself - but in the belief that others 
share this view - I work to end not just the legal 
prohibition, but also the cultural prohibition of pot. If we 
win a court case that proves the law dead, we only win our 
freedom until the feds pass a new law. The faster the law is 
shown to be dead, the faster the new law will be drawn up 
and the poorer it will be. 
JCT: So his point is "why try, they'll just beat us anyway?"
W: And what will the public have learned? Only that it's 
amazin' what them there dope smokers kin do when they put 
their minds to it!
JCT: It wasn't dope-smokers. It was gutsy dope-smokers armed 
by a dope-smoking combat engineer.
W: Its the court cases like Carol Gwilt's and the defenses 
of DML that lead to a future of cultural tolerance, even 
understanding, because they seek to elucidate the public.
JCT: So you're saying we should prove the law is bad all over 
again. Parker's and Krieger's cases weren't enough. When do 
we get to have the funeral if funerals call forth new laws? 
W: A man is accused of molesting a child. In court, the man 
proves that molestation is a crime not currently "known to 
law" because the law agaisnt it was struck down due to a 
technicality. The crown dismisses the charges and the man 
goes free. Innocent or not, in the eyes of the community the 
man will always be a child molester.
JCT: Bad analogy to call the Parker and Krieger medical 
challenges "technicalities" because we then have to move 
to have the law declared dead because the Crown won't admit 
it and stop the busts. 
W: If the pot laws are indeed dead, they only died because 
the laws failed to make pot accessible to patients. The laws 
were struck down due to a technicality. 
JCT: The laws were struck down because they violated the 
rights to life of the sick. Call this a technicality but 
I can't understand your need to denigrate their efforts.  
W: If the laws against pot were never to be resurrected, pot 
would be vilified potentially forever. 
JCT: Not being a scientist, you don't have a scientist's 
understanding of the scientific principle. Do you think 
the lies about the best medicinal herb on the planet will 
escape the truth detectors of engineers just because they've 
continue to escape yours. Now that the truth has caught the 
attention of The Engineer, more will be done than can be 
done by the millions thrown off target by the sown lies.
W: But, to have a jury trial court case, a chance to 
vindicate the herb's reputation, to extol its virtues, to 
open the eyes and ears of the public in such a way as to 
make the lies finally end, that would be truly good. 
JCT: That's exactly what Parker and Krieger both did and now 
you want to do it all again. The strategy changed when 
Parker and Krieger won, from proving the law is bad to 
proving the "technicality" that it's repealed. 
W: So, I guess I watch the cases like Marko's and RAM's with 
interest, 
JCT: Oh, are these using the Krieger and Parker Aces? 
W: but my heart lies with a case that will win using truth: 
JCT: Forgetting that two have already done just that. 
W: Laws against pot should never have been written. The 
science bears this out for any health concerns and our 
cannabis culture is witness to its general wonder and 
benevolence.
JCT: And yet you would just pessimistically keep trying to 
prove it bad but never try to collect the pot by proving
it's dead because once it's admitted dead, Parliament 
will just bring it back to life again anyway?
Whose side are you working on, anyway. You want us spinning 
our wheels in eternal proving the law is bad but never 
claiming it's dead? 
--
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