TURMEL: Shaking the Supreme Court of Canada tree

From: John Turmel (bc726_at_FreeNet.Carleton.CA)
Date: 01/02/05 

Date: 2 Jan 2005 23:53:58 GMT

>http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/index.php?showforum=70
>Can we talk about Turmel here, Virgil?, Censorship in Potlitics
>From: ron Post #97
>Date: Jan 1 2005, 06:37 AM

R: For a different view, Virgil, check this out from
cannabis culture: [Doug and Laurie Nielsen - Buds4Life]
http://www.cannabisculture.com/forums/show...445#Post1015536
>>One thing we know is you should NEVER under estimate John.

>He was your lawyer, D & L. Why does he seem to take such
delight in showing flaws in John's approach. I'm betting the
judges aren't fools, and are tired of being tools of
mindless, endless pr bs. I bet they'll support John.

R: I too hope the judges will throw in the towel by
admitting the persecution is shameful and immoral and should
be disbanded immediately. But I have to admit there is a
dogged tenacity to the rugged defense of this tyranny.

JCT: It is incredible, it's as if they have no shame.

R: Tonight I sparred with a former heroin addict who was
convinced that cannabis was the root of all evil, and that
our society will suffer if we acquiesce. He didn't sway me,
but he was determined, persistent and on message - just like
George Bush.

JCT: A prohibitionist of non-addictive pot because fell for
addictive heroine?
---

>Virgil Post #98
>Date: Jan 1 2005,

V: Ron, I when I read Turmel's Message1588, I had an
admiration for his direct approach. Where he was instructed
to go back to the Ontario Court of Appeals, he cited the law
that said he could bring his motion directly to the Supreme
Court.

JCT: That's the funny part of it all. I'm fascinated to see
how they're going to try to talk me into leaving when I know
I have no intention of going nowhere without being kicked
out first.

V: If all of this were more known, it would surely help the
situation. But he was not talking to some lowly clerk at the
Supreme Court. I think the title is Registrar and is one
powerful man.

JCT: Director of the Registry. I don't know if that's the
Registrar.

V: Turmel is making a request that can easily be ignored and
my thought is that it will be if he does not respect the
office he is requesting action from. But we will see.

JCT: I hope a request under the Act can't be easily ignored
because of how others practice under those sections.

V: Like I said. It helps his story because of the absolute
direct approach his crusading ego compels him to take.

JCT: Plus it's a lot less work, and a lot more pressure on
the Crown.

V: His insistence to be heard by the Supreme Court in
accordance with the law on procedure he cited shows a
conviction that guides him and his role of champion for the
epileptics is not in question.

JCT: Know your rights and don't give them up. It seems a
simple enough, though possibly spectacular, approach.

V: What will happen will be known shortly.

JCT: All sorts of deadlines approach for everyone.

V: I am still not optimistic about this move. But like I
said before, you cannot score if you do not shoot.

JCT: And you cannot score big if you don't aim big.

V: The question is this - why doesn't Pearson make a move on
his own to the Ontario Court of Appeals? Why does he not
take a shot?

JCT: Any shots he has taken were weak off-target shots. He
had his big chance to use Krieger in an Oshawa case and
blew it. He even had a chance to play Krieger in the Kubby
case but they're going in with less than the strongest card.
His only purpose seems to try to shake people's confidence
in me. Or force me to respond to the doubts he raised. He
cost me Johnny Dupuis trying to quash S.7 cultivation first.
He almost cost us the death of the MMAR when they used him
as the reason for an extension of time to keep the MMAR
alive. He's been nothing but aggravation criticizing
everything I do and suggesting loser moves every time.

V: I will check out the Cannabis Culture thread. The largest
ezboard forum I found in Canada was the Urban Toronto Forum.
I have not been accepted yet and this is the one forum I
want in most. I wish someone could get in there and see if
we cannot get someone to get people out of jail like Mike
South- http://tinyurl.com/5vm5z

It also raises the question of why Ed Pearson has not played
the get out of jail card for some of his imprisoned clients
or tell other lawyers about the Turmel engineering to other
lawyers to use. It also raises the question of what people
like Doug and Laurie and yourself (Ron} can do to get people
out.

JCT: Spreading the word is all and you're sure all helping
loads.

V: Turmel talked about having Mike South stand on the court
house steps and handing out packages. He has not talked
about walking into a jail and asking who wants to get out. I
wonder if a person can do that and if they can, why someone,
especially Turmel, has not done so.

JCT: There's no way to find out who's in jail, let alone
contact them to organize a visit. You can bet I'd love to
tell them about the 27-word clause for Inmate appeals that
can get them out.

V: I am not being critical about Turmel on this as he has to
be at 100% output capacity.

JCT: 90%. I have some time left, though little, for new
stuff. As is, I seem dragged along by events.

V: It just seems the greatest support for getting people out
of jail would come from people like Mike South that got
freedom and an education in the get out of jail card.

JCT: Actually, there's nothing much he can do that we all
can't do. 

---
>ron Post #99  
>Date: Jan 1 2005, 11:19 PM 
R: Turmel's assault on the Canadian Judicial system for 
their perversion of justice is certainly leading edge 
politics - and high drama. 
JCT: Someone noticed. It is the judicial system being tested 
here. And failing. 
R: Ignoring or marginalising his campaign by disinformation 
has discredited all media, but especially the cannabis 
press. 
JCT: Everywhere. Why is there so little official pro-
cannabis support for Turmel's motions to invalidate the law? 
R: If he succeeds in forcing the courts to admit (or at 
least not deny) that there is no law in Canada against 
cannabis use, the repercussions will be greater in the US 
than even a Supreme Court ruling in favour of Raich/Monson.
JCT: International tremors should shake up the anti-marijuana 
UN conventions, next on my Abolitionist agenda. 
R: The Good News does seem to be spreading though. The Word 
is being fleshed out in the Cannabis Culture forums and 
Turmel's name appears there as often as Marc Emery's. I 
checked out the Urban Toronto Forum, Virgil. After filling 
out several pages of forms they were still trying to squeeze 
information out of me. I think if I had handed in my credit 
card number they would have admitted me posthaste. I like 
forums like this one. Easy to register, no obvious 
commercial support and control, and only a few people 
posting a few subjects - which stay alive for months.
JCT: Don't forget Richard Lake's crew who go around joining 
groups so they can complain about Turmel posts and get them 
banned. Like eco2man boasted, most pro-cannabis boards have 
been closed to my writings. Says lots. 
R:.. I'm grateful for what I have now, and for the life I've 
had for six decades+. But that doesn't make me oblivious to 
the plight of 700,000 Canadians with criminal records for 
consensual, non violent activities demonized by liars, 
bigots, bullies and jerks. 
Your country has given 15,000,000 people criminal records 
since Harry Anslinger first launched this despicable pogrom 
on his fellow (mainly black) citizens so that means your 
government has been twice as diligent in persecuting its own 
people (still mainly black).
JCT: And no one has used the genocide of the epileptics card 
down south yet. Maybe suppressing all mention of it did help 
the prohibitionist cause this much. 
R: I started reading Cannabis News a few years ago and your 
posts were a bright light there, Virgil. You inspired me, 
and I'm doing what I can. Doug and Laurie's involvement in 
our discussion has been very encouraging and informative. 
They're the closest people to John that I know of, and I 
trust people who've actually met the man more than I do 
those who just respond to PR broadsides. Ramble, ramble, 
ramble - its late now on the wet (and snowy) coast, so I'll 
sign off without a salesman closer. 
---
>Virgil  Post #100  
>Date: Jan 2 2005, 12:05 AM 
Ed Pearson just really lost it on 8520- 
http://tinyurl.com/4aneu 
He came across like a drunk no-nothing Republican, filled 
with hate and angry and not knowing what he is talking 
about.
Thanks for trying that Toronto Forum. It is the largest I 
found at exboard, Ron. I am about ready to write some LTE's. 
I got several calls from Canadian newspapers to verify that 
I wrote them several years ago. I guess they published them. 
What I am concerned about is getting people out of jail and 
of course letting people ride the story to find out how 
corrupt their government really is. There are details on the 
get out of jail card I do not know. I do not have the link 
handy for the leave of appeal a person would need. 
JCT: All forms can be had from he same page: 
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/mpforms.htm 
V: There is also a question of dates. In my mind August 1, 
2001 is good for trafficking also. So far I have not been 
asked any specific questions. My plan would be to have them 
come here so that we can bound it around if need be.
JCT: All dates are in the timeline of marijuana case law at
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/timeline.htm 
V: The forms to have your conviction removed may come up 
some time also. 
JCT: They're already there. It all starts with the original 
notice of appeal (and usually extension of time to appeal 
late).  
V: Maybe we can see the DUO get out on January 7 and the 
floodgates will open. 
JCT: The Hearst Dynamic Duo are in Cochrane Court this 
Friday on a perfect Section 7 charge for a Krieger defence. 
Except that they're also bringing in the contempt charge 
too!
Then Jan 11, same with Richard Johnson in Elliot Lake and 
the contempt charge again against Greg Smith by the Nielsens 
in Brantford on Jan 14. 
V: It is a real sadness that all of those people are in 
prison and could get out.
JCT: Hey, I got my brother out of Bordeaux and made the 
Journal de Montreal urging the Get-out-of-jail forms on 
inmates and was under the impression no one else had ever 
bothered using them in the past two years. Marc Paquette 
says other people have used them to be released but I have 
no names. 
V: Well, there is sadness that they are in jail in the first 
place.
JCT: I want there to be righteous anger matching mine. 
---
>ron  Post #101  
>Date: Jan 2 2005, 01:52 AM 
Good for you and your persistence, Virgil. If you can 
continue to forge through all that crap in registering for 
the Urban Toronto Forum and you do get a chance to broadcast 
this story of the desecration of our judicial system, please 
keep us informed.
JCT: Wouldn't it be lovely to find a way to empty the jails? 
R: I grew up in Toronto. Never went more than a few hundred 
miles away till I was 21. Passed the foreboding Don Jail by 
streetcar and foot thousands of times back when it was 
relatively benign. I shuddered then, and when John speaks 
about his night there, and Mike South's recent stay, I start 
to quiver.
JCT: I wonder how many other horror stories will come out 
when this is all over. 
R: What a shameful coterie of bullies and torturers we face 
today.
JCT: They work for the guys we elected to represent us. 
R: The old Irish used to heap so much scorn on people who 
violated the rights of their fellow men, that these creeps 
often ran away or even died from shame. The Czecks and 
Slovaks did the equivalent to their government in 1989 - and 
toppled it. Can our words accomplish the same today? Can 
they overcome Walters' legion of lying lawyers?
JCT: You don't see them answering, do you? No response, no 
defence. 
Still, the jousting with the Supreme Court of Canada 
Registry was the weirdest deja vu. This is so much like 
election debates where I have not been invited but I go and 
confront the doers of the injustice and insist on 
participating anyway. I've had to fight for what's mine and 
be branded an impolite outlaw for not leaving when asked so 
many times that it's almost like a nightmarish dance, a sway 
to an fro, until they get flipped by the crowd or I get 
flipped by the cops. During the last Brant election, I 
described the dance macabre this way:
>http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/medpot/messages/1227
>Date: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:15am
>Subject: TURMEL: Brant Women's All-Candidates debate
>JCT: Some crowds have no sense of humor and some crowds end 
up in the palm of my hand. This as a great crowd who got 90% 
of my jokes. Sorry, I forgot to bring the tape recorder so 
no transcript, only notes. 
It started off badly. There were only 5 chairs for 6 
candidates and I hadn't received an invitation. So after 
passing out flyers, I took an end chair. An organizer came 
up to me and said that I wasn't going to able to participate 
as I hadn't been on the list when they sent out the invites. 
I said it didn't matter, I was staying. She said "sure, you 
can stay for the meeting but you can't sit up front." I told 
her that I wasn't going to leave, opened up my book of 
Adventures and showed her two press clippings: "Scuffle 
disrupts candidate meeting" (Ottawa Citizen Nov 5 1988) with 
a picture of me seated and another guy freshly flipped down 
onto the floor beside me; "Stealing the show" (Ottawa Sun 
May 26 1995) with a picture of me being advised to leave the 
stage by a police officer. I said that the only way I was 
going to be moved was by a cop so they had better make some 
room and avoid the nightmare. 
Sure enough, a few minutes later, they wheeled in another 
table and chair and were very nice the rest of the way. 
Another advantage of winning through intimidation. Those 
pictures were a solid clue that big trouble for them lay 
ahead if they didn't change. Much like the big trouble for 
the Crown if 100,000 all have to file their papers to get 
their marijuana convictions between July 31 2001 and Oct 7 
2003 overturned rather than the government do it all at 
once." 
JCT: Now, let's go over that again, step by step. 
It started off badly...
Step 1: I took an end chair. 
Step 2: An organizer came up to politely ask me to leave as 
I had not been invited to participate in the debate for my 
election. For whatever reason. Of course, they have this 
initial attitude that, of course, my being a reasonable man, 
you'll agree that it's impossible for you to remain here 
without making a scene and a scene will be best avoided if 
you just leave now and obey the etiquette of the situation. 
Of course, I know I'm not going to move and that they just 
can't imagine my not moving when asked so that when I say: 
Step 3: JCT: I said it didn't matter, I was staying. 
JCT: Saying no usually puts them completely at a loss for 
words. Usually, as if I must have misunderstood, they will 
repeat that there's no provision to deal with me at this 
particular event and I should leave. I can see the shock 
coming that they are about to experience before it hits them 
as soon as I detect their angle of approach. 
Step 4: 
>JCT: She said "sure, you can stay for the meeting but you 
can't sit up front." 
Step 5: I told her that I wasn't going to leave, 
JCT: So here with the court, it was exactly the same. At the 
debate arena, the organizers are saying: "Sure the law says 
the media have to provide "equitable time for all rival 
parties and candidates," but in practice, the courts have 
ruled that it is equitable for minor candidates with little 
chance of winning to get none." So I stand my ground saying 
"Move me as I hang on to my prize," my right, until maximum 
force arrives. And many times the cops have been called in 
to ensure I cannot participate in a debate for the position 
I was running for. But more often, a hero in the crowd 
shouts "Let him stay," and the organizers immediately back 
off their undemocratic stance. But should a boo-bird 
encourage them by shouting "Take the trouble-maker away," it 
scares off most heroes and the cops may get called. That's 
why it's useful to have an ally in the room quick to shout 
for democracy before the boo-bird can shout to deny me mine. 
Here again, in the judicial debate arena, the organizers are 
saying: "Sure the law says the Court or a judge of the court 
may rule on a stay of execution but in practice, we'd prefer 
you leave. Just like I've answered any organizer who had 
asked me to leave where I had a right to be, it's force of 
habit to first say no and hope enough heroes write to the 
Chief Justice saying "let him stay" to balance those boo-
birds writing in to ensure Turmel's motion to invalidate the 
law does not proceed. Oh right, there shouldn't be to many 
fools wanting to get it down on record that they do not want 
Turmel's motion to invalidate the law to proceed. 
>JCT: I opened up my book of Adventures and showed her two 
press clippings: "Scuffle disrupts candidate meeting" 
(Ottawa Citizen Nov 5 1988) with a picture of me seated and 
another guy freshly flipped down onto the floor beside me; 
"Stealing the show" (Ottawa Sun May 26 1995) with a picture 
of me being advised to leave the  stage by a police officer. 
I said that the only way I was going to be moved was by a 
cop so they had better make some room and avoid the 
nightmare. 
JCT: Think about it. Say this was the good-old days when 
applications for leave to appeal were heard live before 3 
judges before I threatened to plug the court with more 
foreclosure cases and the court changed the rules in 1986 to 
take away the Canadian right to a live hearing of the 
application for leave to appeal at the top. I had five of 
mine heard live before the court took away that right. Since 
then, you lose in writing. Is it any wonder most don't even 
bother trying any more? 
Heck, say it's one of the usual days in Ontario Court of 
Appeal where motions are heard live. Just like Terry Parker, 
Doug and Laurie Nielsen just walking up to a judge and 
demanding their motions be heard and having them heard. 
If I had a right to have my request for a stay of execution 
heard by the court and I showed up on the right motion day, 
can anyone imagine what it would take to get me out? The 
last time a registrar did a dirty deed was at the South 
hearing where I couldn't take a stand because I'm still on 
bail myself. If I weren't on bail, does anyone think I would 
not, just like at every debate, make them use maximum force 
to prevent me from enjoying the right that Parliament has 
conferred on me under Section 65.1(1) of the Supreme Court 
Act?
Of course, that could never happen now as all the action is 
taking place within the back-room correspondence, if not the 
front-room court. Still, there's paperwork on their docket 
that the Act says must be dealt with. Failing to talk me out 
of my rights conferred under the statutes by Parliament 
leaves no choice but a ruling by next week. 
But there's no way I'll be shaken out of the top court and 
go back to the inferior court without whatever maximum 
resistance I can muster. People who criticize me for not 
obeying the organizer to immediately go back to Toronto are 
missing the point. 
What do I have to gain by staying or going and what do I 
have to lose by staying or going down? My combative 
obstinacy or persistence, whatever else people may want to 
call it, costs me nothing to try. If I lose my attempt to 
stay at the top, should the Supreme Court clerkdom somehow 
refuse to proceed with the stay request, can I still go 
south? Of course, the answer is yes. 
But if I get to stay and force a ruling by a new judge at 
the highest court, sorry but I think that's more powerful 
than a stay out of Ontario. You can bet that the Crown will 
jump on the argument that a stay out of Ontario is only good 
in Ontario while a stay out of the Canada should be good 
everywhere. 
What have I lost by being bold and trying to hang in at the 
highest arena? The lawyer-brained in the crowd would have 
caved in to the clerk's suggestion just to please the court 
organizers. Engineer-brained Turmel doesn't care about 
pleasing the referee at all as long as the Internet Court of 
Public Opinion will be watching the referee's adjudication. 
My staying my course has almost nothing to lose at all. 
Sure, the back-roomers may get angry but I prefer to think 
they may get fearful of dissing me. This junk-yard dog's got 
fangs in their bone and nothing but the ultimate beating is 
going to make me let go. 
Should an Ottawa judge Order me down to Toronto, I could 
have it filed the very next day and heard within 3 days. 
Then back up top at the top at the first refusal. Days. 
What's the point? 
Oh right, the Toronto judge could reserve his decision and 
put it on a back burner for a couple of months or even 
years. That's the danger of meekly going south. That's the 
real danger. 
Glad I noticed how going south has a pretty bad possible 
outcome. Probably the best reason for not acquiescing to Her 
Majesty The Clerk when I have to right to be signed off on 
by a judge at the top.  
As well, the Crown is running out of time in the motion at 
the top. Technically, the motion can be sent on to the judge 
on the 10th day if they have not responded, that's the very 
next business day. 
You can understand why I sent my refusal for the Supreme 
Court's suggestion back that very day with copies to the 
Crown. I want them to know that if they miss the next 
business day deadline, they'll need an extension of time if 
they do want to file a response and I'll be pushing the 
clerk to send it to a judge for all decision-making on this 
issue of national importance right away. 
Imagine one registrar standing in the way of a stay of 
execution for 4 epileptics every day. It's not often that a 
bureaucrat gets to be responsible for being a public 
executioner with identifiable victims. What a lot of 
pressure on one person. She can ensure Turmel's motion to 
invalidate the law does not proceed. No doubt a certain 
crowd would applaud. Yet she and she alone, with or without 
the Crown's answer, holds the lives of all those Canadian 
epileptics in her hands. Har har har har. 
 
So of course, I could always gone south. I simply chose not 
to go south where there's so much danger of delay until 
forced to. I chose not to leave the national court just 
because I was very politely asked to leave and not make a 
scene. Sorry but I'm a master at making scenes if I don't 
get in where I have a right to be. 
  
But if I am forced south, I'll try to see every single judge 
on the bench, one at a time, week after week, while waiting 
for results above. 
Any guesses on whether more than just the registrar is 
feeling The Engineer shaking the Supreme Court of Canada 
tree? 
--
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