TURMEL: Johnson Quash hearing report

From: John Turmel (bc726_at_FreeNet.Carleton.CA)
Date: 01/12/05 

Date: 12 Jan 2005 08:46:17 GMT

>Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 19:32:51 -0500
>From: sunshinesue_@hotmail.com (suzanne johnson)
>Subject: Outcome of today's proceedings!!!!!!!!!!
>To: MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com
 
Hi all again, Suzanne here, I tried my best to deliver to
you what was said on our tape. ENJOY ALL !!!!!!!!

First, both motions were filed on time as per Judge L.Serre.

She asked, do we have the authority to serve this court with
the contempt notice here in provincial court, or do you need
to inform other people, meaning the Attorney General in
Ottawa. We replied that we needed to confer with our
advisors. So, we asked for half an hour recess and the Judge
gave us 10 minutes.

We conferred with John and he said to put aside this motion
and deal with the quash motion.

Upon return into the courtroom, the Judge felt that she
couldn't deal with this motion of contempt because she
didn't have the authority to do so because the Frankel case
didn't happen in her courtroom.

So Richard replied, can we proceed with the quash motion now
and she said YES!!!!! HURRAY!!!!!!!

( The battle has begun ) she then said that we will deal
with the tape recorder issue.

Aube stood up and objected saying the crown attorney has to
pay for court transcripts everybody has to pay for this,
what makes Mr. Johnson so special.

The Judge then read out loud section 136, which deals with
tape recording in the court. Section 136 states that no tape
recordings are allowed except under certain circumstances.
And at this point, richard interrupted the court by saying
that John Turmel took a tape recorder to every court all the
way to supreme court and was accepted, why shouldn't I be
allowed? richard also mentioned earlier that he couldn't
afford a stenographer so then the Judge ALLOWED the
recorder. HURRAY!!!!

It appears that the Judge is on our side and very
compassionate. At this point, Richard stood up and started:

OK, well, you honor, I'm here to show that section 7 was
fought in the Alberta court of Appeals and the Supreme Court
of Canada and the Ontario Court of Appeals. I have all the
judgments here showing the orders being signed saying that
there's no force, no effect for marihuana laws.

Have you heard of Krieger before you heard of me? At this
point, the Judge said that she is not answering questions..

Richard replies, ok, then, your honor, my motion is to prove
a cover up from Mr. Frankel, at the top, he misrepresented
himself to the Calgary Herald and Calgary sun. He knew that
the law was struck down, he let the crown prosecutors all
across Canada continue to have people arrested, or to let
the police know, he didn't let the crowns know, he didn't
let me know or you know, that these laws are dead!!!

It's all in my motion, if you read the motion, it's pretty
self-explanatory. I'm not a lawyer, but, everything is here.
I know, I went to school, supreme court says, we're all
taught in this country, it goes to the Supreme Court, that's
the top, it can't come back down to another court.

Hitzig, OK, which they're trying to use against me, Hitzig,
first of all, was an opinion, second of all, Hitzig dealt
with section 4, I'm dealing with section 7. Krieger says
that section 7 is alive!! Why did I get arrested? I want
to deal with section 7. show me where section 7 is against
the law? I didn't do nothing against the law! that's what
I'm saying for my motion. I should have all my charges
quashed, my wife and daughter has been arrested to be used
against me to try and cop a plea. I don't know how that ever
happened in this country, but it happened!

Something is not right. They arrested me illegally, it's all
here, you've been lied to, I've been lied to, why didn't the
Canadian public know? Why weren't we lead to be known that
there was no laws? Why was it misrepresented to the 2
newspapers, which are in there, if you read them. Everybody
at the top knew who was involved in those cases. Why didn't
somebody make it publicly known that the newspapers were
misrepresented, that Krieger case wasn't a personal win, as
they're trying to say it was. this was a win for ALL of
canada. the law is the law!

the Crown has gone to the Supreme Court to try and appeal
the Court decision in Krieger. 6 of 9 Judges said NO, WE'RE
NOT GOING TO APPEAL IT!!! we're dismissing your case. Making
the Court of Appeals laws, the standing law in town. that's
the law that I'm going to respect!

That's the law that I'm going to respond to, That's not a
law that I should have been arrested. There was no law at
the time. And I want my charges quashed! I want my stuff
back!! That's my case!!! Right there!!!!!!! there was no
law! It was struck down!! Section 7. Section 4 has nothing to
do with me. Hitzig has nothing to do with me. That was a
resurrection of section 4, not section 7 your honor.

Your Honor replies: So, by the letter of the law, your
saying that section 7 has been struck down?

Richard replies: That's right, and I've been arrested, my
life has been turned up-side down costs me money, costs my
children to resent the police and the whole town for this,
it's just not a good thing, why weren't we told, why wasn't
the Canadian public told that there is no law, why does the
police still have the power to arrest people and arrest me!

Why isn't the truth being told to the public, why has there
been a media ban for 2 years. THIS ALL AFFECTS MY CASE!!!
If they would have told me and let me know, Mr. Aube
wouldn't be sitting right here, we wouldn't be wasting your
time, the courts time, the taxpayers money!!! We are here
for a law that is unknown. Why am I charged. How can I be
charged with an unknown law? It doesn't make no sense!!!

Supreme Court of Canada agrees with the court of Appeals,
WHAT'S THE PROBLEM!! Hitzig is trying to resurrect number 4,
IT WAS AN OPINION!!!

Show me an order where it shows Hitzig actually signing the
order stating it was no more than an opinion, there is no
such order, as far as I know.

There's nothing here to arrest me for! I've done nothing
wrong!! And if section 7 doesn't apply the section 4 doesn't
apply. I would just like to point out that in the Phillips
case in Windsor, Jan. 2nd, 2003, it was ruled prohibition
was repealed. Why are some judges repealing, some judges are
dismissing, some judges are convicting, because the law is
so muddled.

If the laws weren't so muddled, if the crown attorney of
Canada, the big guy, if he came clean and tell everybody
what's going on, the arrests would stop. All the people that
have been arrested for the last 2 or 3 years, they shouldn't
be in jail. They shouldn't have had convictions because it
was unknown to law.

I don't understand what the big deal is? If it's unknown to
law, stop this madness, let me get on with my life, let
government legislate, the cat I did anything wrong!

I'm looking at the highest decisions in the land, a lower
court can't say to hell with the higher courts, that's not
right! That's not the way it's done! We have a constitution
to protect us! what is this country coming to if that's not
respected. Your Honor, you have the power, OK, to make this
respectable again, make our country respectable again,
expose the truth to the public. Have my charges quashed.
That's my case.

At this point Your Honor proceeded to say something and
Richard interrupts:

Richard says: If nothing else, even the repealed letter
Health Canada reinstates the repealed sections that made the
law unconstitutional to begin within Terry Parker case. They
put back 2 of 5 things that they've taken out, they put it
back in, making the law unconstitutional again.

So, even if you want to use the Hitzig against me, Health
Canada made it unconstitutional again by putting these 2
cancers back in. I have here, the actual submission from the
case -- Aids Canada asking them to put them back in, it's
not fair, people are dying, they can't get medicine, it's
unconstitutional again as well as when I got arrested.

so not only is the issue unknown to law, OK, but we also
have Health Canada putting in the 2 out of 5 which made this
unconstitutional. So, that's my point, if you don't want to
respect the 1st point, and I'm not trying to be
disrespectful by the way I'm talking, I'm just excited. But,
come on, this is just wrong in every which way you can look
at it.

Judge asks: How does case Dec. 23/2003 tie in with your case?

Richard replies: OK, your Honor, like I said the Crown, Mr
Frankel knew that section 7 has been struck down, he tried
to go to the supreme Court to have it appealed, they said
NO. Because it had already been dealt with and we agree with
the Courts of Appeal in Alberta. I don't understand what's
the confusion?

At this point, Richard sits down. And it's Mr Aube"s turn.
At this time I'm having a hard time understanding was mumbo
jumbo he's trying to say on the tape, so I will deliver his
side at a later date, when we decipher his part! sorry, I
hope I made this legible!

After Aube's finished, the end result was a return date by
Judge L. Serre. (on Jan 18) where at that time she will
render her decision on the motion! HURRAY!!!

Richard did a wonderful job, I thought. He talked just as
professional as any lawyer I've seen in court, you would've
all been proud. As nervous as he was, I was confident that
he made our interest known very loudly, haha, and we will
have our ruling on January 18th, at 10 in the morning! I
sure hope this all helps you John and us, lol!!
Nite All Have a great day

JCT: Looking good. If the judge does her homework, I just
don't see how she can disobey the Supreme Court order. 

--
Abolitionist Slave Leader John C."The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
for UNILETS interest-free time-based currency in U.N. resolution C6
to Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm 
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel 519-753-0645 USENET: can.politics

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Sonia Sotomayor: Another Radical In Robes
    ... Sonia Sotomayor is an activist judge whose decisions have ... nearly always been overturned by the very Court to which she aspires, ... as determined by the law. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Say, Larry, How About This Bizarre Legal Argument? (Effective Assistance of Counsel, Sixth Amendment
    ... Defendant asks the Court to take Judicial Notice of the fact that many ... the Constitution were attorneys, such as John Jay, first Chief ... To have a "friend" act as Counsel was a Common Law Right and was ...
    (misc.legal)
  • Re: Federal judge rules in favor of Osama Bin Laden
    ... It's the (neo-con Republican lawyer/radio host) Hugh Hewitt Rule of Law: Whatever works in my favor is a Good Thing. ... I'm struggling in vain to find any legally valid explanation for the notion that a state court of general jurisdiction cannot hear a federal civil rights case filed by a resident of that state, wherein every act complained in occurred in the same state. ... a judge will only follow precedent when it takes them precisely where they want to go. ... The NSA does not have to have a warrant to ...
    (misc.legal)
  • TURMEL: Nielsen Quash hearing report
    ... both motions were filed on time as per Judge L.Serre. ... the contempt notice here in provincial court, ... the law was struck down, he let the crown prosecutors all ... police still have the power to arrest people and arrest me! ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Clothesfree petition ends on the 28th....
    ... but you can't criticise the police when their actions ... an English Court for simple nudity, indeed I think in every instance ... the relevant law would never have got started, ... that no initial arrest would have been made. ...
    (uk.rec.naturist)