TURMEL: #2 Johnson Quash hearing report
From: John Turmel (bc726_at_FreeNet.Carleton.CA)
Date: 01/13/05
- Next message: XCobraJock: "Re: Income from a tax on land."
- Previous message: John Turmel: "TURMEL: Nielsens attack on Contempt and Krieger too"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 13 Jan 2005 23:52:01 GMT
JCT: The Johnsons have filled out their report so I'm going
to publish it with yesterday's stuff and the new from today.
>Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 03:51:22 +0000
>From: el_sunset_warrior@yahoo.ca (el_sunset_warrior)
>Subject: an update to tuesdays court,
>To: MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com
NOTE: everything added (JUDGES COMMENTS AND CROWNS COMMENTS)
are NOT word for word, it is what we can MAKE OUT OF THE
COURT TRANSCRIPT from our tape recorder, do NOT QUOTE
anything! thank you and enjoy...
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: I am not answering Questions. You
have to make a representation to the proper court based on
your application.
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.
Judge replies: So in summary section 7 has been struck down
Richard:THAT'S RIGHT!
Judge replies: in the province of Alberta and has been
sustain by the Supreme court
Richard replies: EXACTLY YES
Judge replies: Therefor section 7....
Richard interfered: DOES NOT APPLY TO ME!
Judge replies: is unknown to law and according to the law
either...
Richard continues..
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!!
Judge replies: So in reality right, not only are you dealing
with section 7 your also dealing with section 4
Richard continues: 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 courts don't have the power to,
they can abrogate, only parliament can legislate! THERE'S
NOTHING HERE!!! There's nothing here that can prove to me
that 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: you refer to the supreme court of Canada R. v.
Clay
Richard: KRIEGER
Judge: I am looking at your application
Richard: OH, I am sorry
Judge: Regina versus Clay dated december 23,2003 (can't make
out the rest)
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?
Judge states: Now the prosecutor will present his factum and
once he's done you will be able to reply to the factum.
At this point, Richard sits down and then says "thank you"
your honor. And it's Mr. Aube"s turn now.
Aube: Your Honor, Mr. Johnson asked "what the big deal is
here? The big deal is that Mr. Johnson and his wife were
charged with cultivation of Marijuana, Possession of
Cannabis resin, Possession of Marijuana and possession of
marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.
Most if not all the evidence you bring has to do with the
use of medical marijuana or with the parker decision EHH!
and the decision in windsor with respect to the young
offender.
All that has been and where resolved prior to the charges
against Mr. Johnson and his Daughter on April 27th,2004. Mr.
Johnson, I repeat the elements of part 1,2 of my factum and
would request that the actually had the application be
dismissed has it is completely without foundation or merit.
One last comment, aaaa, duh... these, these matters are in
an unorderly fashion and usually brought as a motion before
a trial judge. I've been looking for some specific authority
and, i haven't found any in all my years usually this is the
starter trial or at the end of the Crown's case.
Because we have part of the information and part of his
statement there's no affidavit, Mr. johnson BLAH BLAH BLAH
and well the crown provided some of the evidence and we left
them to use those with the prejudice that you will draw from
them.
There is a proper place for this to come up when at the
beginning of a trial.
(And finally the court with BLAH BLAH BLAH in order to
dismiss this matter.) <---- cant make out anything he says
right there
Judge says: Any response sir?
Richard: yes your honor, I take it now I can talk about the
respondents factum.
Judge: Yes
Richard: Well your honor, part 3 or part 2 response to
applicants issue, the motion is without merit, isn't
complete, not properly before the court. A) the applicant
seeks an order quashing all charges related to marijuana
under the CDSA. On the date of the offense, april 27th,
2004, marijuana was a substance listed in the schedule to of
the said act and was unknown to law!
O.K. well what i have to say about that is that marijuana on
Schedule 2 is not unknown to law, it's not. It's not what
I'm looking at here, I am looking at prohibition of section
7 as no longer to known to law.
As for affidavit your honor this is an issue of pure law, so
i don't believe i need affidavit because it is an issue of
pure law it has nothing to do with constitutional these are
case laws.
C) a motion which seeks to declare unconstitutional and of
no force and effect must be brought before the court in
accordance with the rule 26 of the rules of the ontario
court of justice in criminal proceedings.
ok, well your honor, i didn't ask for unconstitutional
relief ok, I'm asking that the law to be declared dead, not
that there is anything wrong with the law so it is not a
constitutional issue.
Judge replies: I UNDERSTAND!
In #4 where he's telling me the history of the state of the
law as it relates to cannabis marijuana with Staver's. O.K.
well Staver's accepted section 4 resurrection ok, I'm not
arguing the section 4, I'm arguing section 7 cultivation is
dead.
As for number 5 and 6, the MMAR provide for exemption
related for possession of marijuana and in some cases for
cultivation of marijuana for medical purposes. The
applicants do not have an authorization to possess "nor do
they have a personal use production licence."
Your honor, I don't need - I have no more need for an
exemption now that I am no longer prohibited since KRIEGER
won his case in section 7 in december of 2002. I don't need
the exemption because I have done nothing wrong, KRIEGER
won it, cultivation is legal.
The Judge went on to discuss a further date to put a ruling
on Johnson's motion to QUASH. date is set for January
18th,2005 at 10:00am
Richard said "I would like to thank you for hearing me out
you honor"
Hey everybody, we would appreciate any comments or your
opinion on what happened on this day. AS FOR THE "blah blah
blah's, I WILL TRY TO MAKE THEM OUT AND POST THEM AS SOON
AS POSSIBLE.
NOTE AGAIN: everything added (JUDGES COMMENTS AND CROWNS
COMMENTS) are NOT word for word, it is what we can MAKE OUT
OF THE COURT TRANSCRIPT from our tape recorder, do NOT QUOTE
anything! thank you
JCT: Isn't it wonderful hearing an honest person present
their own case for justice! Right from the heart. What
lawying attorney can do that?
I can't imagine how a judge cannot be forced to obey the
Alberta Court of Appeal supported by the Supreme Court of
Canada. So I'll bet we win the end to prohibition on
Tuesday, if not tomorrow with the Nielsens, at even money.
I'm betting the prohibition of marijuana falls by Tuesday at
even money. Any takers to bet that it survives?
-- 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
- Next message: XCobraJock: "Re: Income from a tax on land."
- Previous message: John Turmel: "TURMEL: Nielsens attack on Contempt and Krieger too"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
