TURMEL: Why no charge from Manitoba Kid

From: John Turmel (bc726_at_FreeNet.Carleton.CA)
Date: 01/14/05 

Date: 14 Jan 2005 02:04:25 GMT

JCT: I found this discussion online which explains why there
was no charge against prohibition out of Manitoba on Monday.

>http://www.overgrow.com/edge/showthread/t-569580.html
Overgrow Marijuana Forums

Captain Kaieda
Topic: We can empty Canadian jails for all MJ charges:
possession/ cultivation / trafficking

Jailed in Canada? Know someone who is? Here's how to get
them released pending appeal for ANY marijuana charge. Mike
South of Ontario was released Dec. 20, 2004 pending appeal.
He was charged with trafficking under section 5 of the
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Here's how he did it.
You can too.

1. INSTRUCTIONS (explanations of the inmate forms and the
grounds) can be found at this link:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/inmate.txt
[Of course, change the name of the province if the prisoner
is not in an Ontario facility.]

2. Add the following Magic 27 words to your grounds of
appeal:
"Parliament has not re-enacted the necessary S.4 possession
and S.7 cultivation prohibitions sustaining any imputed
improper purpose since they were struck down in Parker and
Krieger."

3. The COURT RULES for INMATE APPEALS in Ontario can be
found at:
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/cour...help/inmate.htm

4. Updates from other inmates who are appealing their
charges, including Mike South, may be found at this website:
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/grou...iscuss/messages

Inmate appeals can empty Canadian jails for all MJ charges.

This is an important bulletin for those convicted of ANY
marijuana offence in Canada under the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act (CDSA). This includes all cannabis prisoners
sentenced to jail for possession of marijuana (CDSA section
4[1]), marijuana possession for the purpose of trafficking
(CDSA section 5[2]), marijuana trafficking (section 5), and
marijuana cultivation (section 7).

Abolitionist slave leader John C. "The Banking Systems
Engineer" Turmel has crafted a means for cannabis prisoners
to obtain release pending appeal. On December 20, 2004 he
helped free a cannabis prisoner named Mike South from the
notorious Don Valley jail in Ontario. The forms Mike South
used can be used by any cannabis prisoner in Canada. (Note
1)

Marijuana possession laws were repealed all over Canada on
Terry Parker Day, August 1, 2001 (Parker decision of the
Ontario Court of Appeal declared July 31, 2000).

The cultivation prohibition on marijuana in section 7 of the
CDSA was ruled invalid by the Alberta Court of Appeal
effective December 12, 2001 (declared March 18, 2003).

But with the upcoming Turmel cases in the Supreme Court of
Canada and developments described at this webpage
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/timeline.htm all marijuana
prisoners deserve to be released immediately.

These facts have been kept from the public by the collusion
of CanWest Global and most other media outlets, reporter
Shannon Kari, the Justice Department of Canada, almost all
members of Canada's bench (the judges) and bar (the defence
and Crown lawyers). And especially Osgoode Hall (Toronto)
law professor Alan Young, Crown lawyers Lara Speirs, Scott
Couper and Janet Henchey, Justice Department lawyer S. David
Frankel, Anne McLellan and the rest of the drug war
criminals appointed Ministers of Health and Justice.

Here's the kicker. A brilliant and just ploy. Turmel is also
urging all prisoners to seek an order citing the Ministry of
Justice for contempt of court and abuse of process. Of
course, it's all laid out in the Krieger court documents in
black and white. See webpages (d) and (e) listed just below
for more information on how Mike South will be trying to use
this stick.

More information
(a) "First Ontario Inmate Get-Out-Of-Jail Appeal Monday"
(Medpot message 1547 by Turmel - December 10, 2004) found
at:
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/grou...ot/message/1547

(b) "Judge Simmons at Mike South Out-Of-Jail hearing"
(Medpot message 1551) found at:
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/grou...ot/message/1551

(c) "Instructions to Mike South's lawyer" (Medpot message
1560):
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/grou...ot/message/1560

(d) "Mike South asks court to cite Crown for contempt"
(message 1570):
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/grou...ot/message/1570

(e) "Mike South Application for Contempt Citation (message
1574):":
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/grou...ot/message/1574

(f) "TURMEL: Surprise strike while the iron is hot" (message
1578 - December 24, 2004):
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/grou...ot/message/1578

(g) For the latest updates to this continuing story
(currently blacklisted and censored in the "mainstream"
corporate-controlled media) visit one of the following two
Yahoo message boards:

"Medpot" found here:
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/MedPot/messages
(contains the Medpot postings by John Turmel only),
or "Medpot-discuss" found here:
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/grou...iscuss/messages
(contains all Medpot postings, by Turmel and all others)

(h) The highest court in Canada recognizes the
constitutional right to GROW and POSSESS marijuana to anyone
with a medical need for it. The CDSA marijuana prohibition
is ruled unconstitutional for all of Canada. Summary of the
Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decision in Her Majesty the
Queen v. Grant Wayne Krieger:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegsc2.htm

(i) The SCC Krieger judgment order (with Chief Justice of
Canada Beverley McLachlin's signature) can be found here:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegscc.bmp

(j) An excellent summary of cannabis prohibition in Canada
from 1997 to 2004 and beyond is John [the Engineer] Turmel's
Marijuana Prohibitions Timeline, found here:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/timeline.htm

Note 1.
Question from Elagabalus:
"Why can't everyone else in jail file the same appeal
documents as Mike South, and "Get Out of Jail Now"?"

John Turmel:
"Call them "appeal grounds." You only have to get 1
paragraph to any inmate to add to the documentation they
provide: GROUNDS OF APPEAL
"Parliament has not re-enacted the necessary S.4 possession
and S.7 cultivation prohibitions sustaining any imputed
improper purpose since they were struck down in Parker and
Krieger."
Call it the Magic 27 words of grounds. Keep in mind that
Mike wasn't convicted under Parker's repealed Section 4 or
Krieger's repealed Section 7. Mike was convicted under the
trafficking Section 5 and he's released pending his Section
5 appeal with Section 4 and 7 rulings!
There is now no doubt that we can empty the jails for all
marijuana charges, not just the Parker and Krieger sections
by filing their Inmate Appeals with only the same Parker and
Krieger grounds."

more Turmel:
"Mike's the first *** in the Section 5 armor ever. The
Crown says the Krieger card has no merit but consents to his
release pending on a Section 5 case that argues it links to
Krieger's S.7 and Parker's S.4 repeals. That's the real
bonus this time. Everyone can get out, S.5 traffickers too."

JCT: Thanks to Captain Kaieda for spreading the good news of
our rebel abolitionist court artillery. 

----
Annu The Sun God**
title:We can empty Canadian jails for all MJ charges: 
Lothar please chime in here brotha.
----
userduuuuuuuude|| 
If this is something never ruled on by an appeals court, 
trial judges can rule all over the map, meaning win, lose, 
partial win, etc. until the issue is resolved. Usually 
courts find a way to avoid letting a technical mistake 
release thousands of people from prison.
----
JCT: It wasn't that "Usually courts find a way to avoid 
letting a technical mistake release thousands of people from 
prison." I forced them to drop 4000 charges on an issue of 
merit. The law was dead, not the paperwork wasn't right. 
----
SiLENT_MARY_SMOKER|| 
wuts the bottom line, like annu said we need sum expertise. 
lothar perhaps??
JCT: Lothar must be the resident legal expert. 
----
Lothar
L: Ok, I see it. ;) It's pretty damn busy this time of year 
for me, family *** and all, but I will get back to you with 
an detailed analysis of the argument when I get a chance, 
hopefully this afternoon, but I can give you a rough 
impression.  The reasoning in all of the above, I find very 
convoluted, likely because the picture is very incomplete. 
JCT: He finds a 27-word argument convoluted! Har har har 
har. A lawyer ends up convoluted after 27 words from The 
Engineer. "Parliament has not re-enacted the necessary S.4 
possession and S.7 cultivation prohibitions sustaining any 
imputed improper purpose since they were struck down in 
Parker and Krieger." This is convoluted? 
L: All of this was previously solved in a case called Hitzig 
where the court ruled that the Parker case, which allowed 
everyone to smoke for a while, was too broad, and brought 
the issue back to the medical patients. 
JCT: So the lawyer accepts that the courts can re-enact 
penal statutes. Har har har har. He says the law was dead 
for everyone and the court brought it back to only the 
medical patients. Yes, that's the Alan Young line of 
argument when he crowed that as of 9am this morning, the 
legalisation for everyone is over. Everyone was allowed to 
smoke for a while but the Hitzig Court made it illegal again 
for everyone except patients. How easily he accepts that 
courts have the right to enact law. How easily they forget 
their learning and accept bull. "The court did it so they 
must have the right to do it" is how lawyers are trained to 
think. We've heard before. Greg Smith admitted he couldn't 
point to any authority but since the court did it, and they 
wouldn't have done it if they couldn't have done it, then 
they must be able to do it. 
L: In Hitzig, they outlined what the med issues had to be. 
So, this isn't a ground of appeal for everyone just for med 
patients, 
JCT: If that's what we were arguing, accepting the premise 
that Alan Young brought the prohibition back to life, yes, 
he'd be right. Accepting that Alan Young brought the law 
back to life against everyone but medical users, then it 
wouldn't be a ground except for medical users. If you don't 
accept that Alan Young's motion had the power to bring the 
law back to life, then it isn't only for patients. We're not 
arguing medical any more. 
L: but even then it's a weak ground of appeal, since you can 
legally get an exemption, and it's up to you to be diligent 
about it. "I have an ingrown toenail" will not make your 
argument very solid. The Levine / Clay case was another loss 
that took the wind out of the "freedom to possess for any 
reason I want" argument. 
JCT: It took the wind out of the "freedom to possess for 
recreation" argument, not "for medical uses" argument. But 
the only cards the bad guys have to use against us are the 
the Hitzig-Myrden and Malmo-Levine cases. 
L: Turmel (who is one of those nuts that like to throw 
around words like "genocide" when talking about marijuana, 
and calls everyone "war criminals" :rolleyes: ) 
JCT: What is it about lawyers that seems to stunt their 
brain cells? If 4 dead epileptics a day isn't genocide, what 
would it be called: unfortunate collateral damage, no doubt? 
Why can't lawyers grasp that prohibition of medicine kills? 
L: is purportedly suggesting that the dismissal of the leave 
to appeal to the Supreme Court in the Krieger case is the 
same as the SCC saying "There is no law!!!"
JCT: No, the dismissal of the leave to appeal to the Supreme 
Court of the Krieger court striking down the law is the same 
as the SCC saying "We do not disagree with them striking 
down the law." "We do not disagree that there is not law." 
So I never claimed they say: There is not law. I claim they 
say "No disagreement with the claim "there is no law." Of 
course, they say that this means nothing. "We do not 
disagree with the Alberta Court of Appeal striking down S.7" 
means nothing? The Court notes Acton struck down S.7. The 
Court notes that the Alberta Court of Appeal did not 
disagree but sustained her repeal of S.7. And now the 
Supreme Court of Canada rules it does not disagree with 
Alberta Court of Appeal" and that means nothing? 
To a professional gambler like me, when the Supreme Court of 
Canada ruled it did not disagree with "S.7 being declared no 
force and effect by the highest court in Alberta," that 
means something. That something can be deduced. "S.7 is 
officially declared of no force and effect since it was 
declared of no force and effect on Dec. 4 2002. And S.4 
under Parker earlier. A Supreme Court decision always means 
something. 
L: The guy got off because he had severe medical issues that 
were not being addressed by the Gov, and that's good for 
him. It is not carte blanche for a bong party at the Prime 
Ministers house every night, and for every gangsta who got 
popped with a kilo of weed in his baggy pants to run free. 
JCT: That was Krieger's lawyer Iovinelli's line: "Striking 
down S.7 isn't carte blanche for all, just for Krieger." 
L: Anyhow, that's my initial impression, I'm going to have 
to see an actual judgment from the bail variation / release 
pending appeal (not Turmel's recollections in a chat room) 
and the Krieger decision, which I can look up. 
JCT: How about Turmel's arguments in a motion? I can't 
produce proof of Mike South to his satisfaction in a chat 
room so Mike South didn't happen?
L: You'll also notice that Turmel claims responsibility for 
all the stayed cases earlier, (as though Parker's lawyer who 
argued the case had nothing to do with it), 
JCT: Parker's lawyer got the law declared bad in 2000. There 
were no 4000 improperly charge people then. Turmel got the 
law declared dead 2 years later when there were 4000 
mistakes still pending. I guess the lawyer didn't read his 
facts right.
L: and brings up the conspiracy theory that the government, 
the defence, the crown, the press are all in on keeping this 
"gateway to freedom" from the public. 
JCT: How does he explain that he hasn't heard of the 2 year-
old Krieger decision at the Court of Appeal and 1-year-old 
Supreme Court decision. Was he just lazy? Was he just 
incompetent? Why didn't he know about this challenges from 
Provincial to Superior to Appellate to Supreme levels? Just 
because they didn't make the news and he gets his law from 
the media? So while everyone from the "I confess and plead 
guilty" crowd makes the news, no one from the fight the law 
crowed is heard about. No one in Brantford knows Mike South 
got out. The Expositor published the story of his getting in 
but then suppressed the story of his getting out. Why did 
Editor David Judd kill the story? 
L: I have a funny feeling that the reason it was not in the 
papers, was because it is not news at all. 
JCT: While some other people think this is the most important 
case in the world. No matter what the presstitutes say, and 
those who rely on the press for their legal knowledge, this 
lawyer didn't know about the Terry Parker Day declaration 
until 2 years later. How many clients did he plead guilty 
while the law was invalid between 2001 and 2003? Every one 
of his marijuana clients was improperly convicted during 
that time because he did not know what The Engineer was 
shouting from the roof-tops, that the law had died on Parker 
Day.
---
Lothar
Ok, here's some further information for your amusement and 
edification. Here's some short synopses on where the court 
stands on each issue (one pagers)
What they had to say about Mr. Turmel: You'll note 
especially paragraph 5: "(Mr. Turmel's argument) is based on 
a fundamental misconception. A declaration does not delete a 
provision from a statute. Pursuant to s. 52(1) of the 
Constitution Act, 1982 its effect is to render the provision 
of no force or effect to the extent of its inconsistency 
with the provisions of the Constitution."
JCT: He agrees that there's no need for the letter of the 
law to state the law, he agrees the judges will remember 
when it doesn't apply. But he didn't know and neither did 
they last time, are they to be trusted to remember? I guess 
he didn't note they forgot during 2001 to 2003 and since 
then too. 
L: EDIT : SEE BELOW FOR CASE
Here's the reasoning behind Hitzig, also short and clear: 
JCT: I cut it. 
EDIT: SAME AS ABOVE
Again, you'll see that the issue was determined, and again, 
the law still exists. 
JCT: Note he just can't bring himself to say it exists 
again after being invalid. Saying "still exists" 
fraudulently ignores that it had died and "exists again." 
L: Now, anyone can get bail pending appeal, regardless of 
the crime, it does not follow that the appeal will work, or 
that they will be somehow exonerated when some case ahead of 
the line is decided. 
JCT: The point was to empty the jails. Some guys are never 
happy. Forever comes next. 
L: When the court denies leave to appeal, in this case the 
Kreiger case where the Crown wanted to appeal, the court is 
saying: "Look, the case was properly decided in the issue 
before the trial Judge. There is no need to go further. 
That in itself is not an implication that suddenly no law 
exists, as posited by Mr. Turmel. 
JCT: But the Trial Judge said it no longer existed. The case 
was properly decided in the issue before the trial Judge. 
she said suddenly no law exists, not posited by Turmel. How 
can lawyers keep getting everything so wrong? 
L: The Supreme Court of Canada does not vaguely imply, 
without reasons that something is or is not legal, they'll 
tell you specifically. "reading between the lines" or 
fundamentally misunderstanding the law is not a viable 
defence. Sorry for the bubble bursting. :(
JCT: Whose bubble? One minute, he says the Supreme Court 
decisions meaning nothing and the next minute, the Supreme 
Court tell specifically. Make up his mind. 
----
Captain Kaieda
Lothar, Would you mind making this thread into a sticky 
thread? And also the thread entitled "Cannabis laws dead in 
Canada - how to fight back when charged''?
----
Lothar
Captain Kaieda, I'd be happy to if I thought the information 
was accurate, unfortunately I don't believe it is. 
JCT: So Lothar is the reason preventing Turmel's 
information from reaching more people because it is 
"inaccurate." 
L: The bail pending appeal issue is a standard legal move 
that is very well known and has been for as long as we've 
had a legal system. 
JCT: Okay, so because that's not so impressive, therefore 
nothing is? It's just that no matter how easy it is, it's 
rare because no one very often has grounds to appeal. 
L: However, the other issues relating to the Kreiger defence 
need to be properly vetted.
JCT: Can't be if he keeps spelling krIEger wrong. Can he 
have found all the right information in his Kreiger 
searches? 
L: When the courts open up again and I'm back in the office, 
I'll get in touch with a couple of Federal Crowns and the 
local defence bar to see if anyone is actually running any 
such defence. As a matter of fact I'll be snowboarding with 
a prosecutor and a defence lawyer for the next two days, 
we'll discuss it over beers and hash as usual with all 
things important, and although this one is not a fed (does 
not do drug cases) - that person will have some good 
insight. I don't want to be sending 100's of people in the 
wrong direction, it's not very responsible. 
JCT: He's already done that without even having studied the 
Krieger ruling. He prevented the Turmel info from reaching a 
wider audience in case it was wrong; rather than after he 
had found it to be wrong. 
L: No offence to your find, but I don't believe Mr. Turmel 
to be terribly credible since the courts have already found 
that he doesn't understand his own cases.
JCT: Wow. What a cheap shot from the trial and error 
brigade. It's cheap because he accepted their dis without 
understanding if there was any basis behind it. I never 
heard them say that about me. Judge Lederman dissed me for 
arguing the law had died on Terry Parker Day but then I was 
later proved right when the Court of Appeal ruled the law 
had died on Parker Day after Lederman refused to make the 
declaration. As long as everyone knows that this guy who 
said I wasn't credible is with the crowd who were wrong and 
non-credible me was the only one right.
----
Lothar
Here we go, the actual Krieger case : 
http://www.canlii.org/ab/cas/abca/2003/2003abca85.html
JCT: So he has the Acton decision, not the Court of Appeal.
L: Again, you'll see that the defence was predicated upon a 
defence of necessity, availability of medicinal marijuana, 
and relates to the need for medicine in a case where someone 
is seriously ill. It has nothing to do with "everyone's 
right" to smoke, grow or possess pot. I'll be back in a few 
days............
JCT: The case has nothing to do with everyone. So the 
ruling striking down Section 7 has nothing to do with 
everyone too? Har har har. 
----
sledman jones <Glenn Gray>
Great work Lothar, I saw this link and I thought it was too 
good to be true. But it never hurts to follow up on these 
things. Anything to stay out of jail....
JCT: He thought the Turmel link was too good to be true and 
now Lothar has convinced him it is. Of course, staying out 
of jail is easy. All he has to do on a first offence is 
crawl before the judge remorsefully and accept the brand new 
criminal record just like the other kid convicted with Mike 
South did and that's all it takes for any lawyer to keep him 
out of jail. It's easy to beat jail if he crawls on his 
first bust. 
-----
Lothar
Be curious to see what reply you get Sledman.......:tup:
----
sledman jones
I emailed Mr. Turmel on the 28th of dec and still no reply 
from him. I'm thinking that his defence may help someone who 
is very sick but it wont' help lil ole me. It's just about 
the 10th of jan. and i'll soon be off to my first court 
appearance. I'll keep you all informed. Wish me luck
JCT: It has to help him if it helps me for my House of 
Commons bust.
-----
sledman jones
mr Turmel contacted me by phone and is very eager to have me 
use this method to quash. He wants me to begin by sending 
these docs to the crown attny. in manitoba today by fax and 
email, then present the paper copy at my court appearance on 
monday the 10th of Jan. I need your advice Lothar. Should I 
proceed? Will it hurt me later if I do and then change my 
mind? He is very fired up about this and feels I have a good 
case.  Please advise me as to your opinion
JCT: Lothar influences medpot history... for fame or infamy. 
-----
--
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