TURMEL: #3 Why no charge from Manitoba Kid

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

Date: 14 Jan 2005 02:18:32 GMT

sledman jones
think its good enuf. I'm sure you are well informed about
these things and I trust your advice more than Mr Turmels at
this point. I hope my court appearance goes as you say and I
do not have to spend any jail time. I'm very nervous about
it and I guess thats why I am so eager to believe the
Mr.Turmel could quash all these charges with the stroke of a
pen, so to speak.

JCT: Your choice gets you a criminal record since you know
you are guilty if you accept the law still exists. There are
only two choices. No lawyer can save you from your brand new
criminal record,l only Turmel quashing your charge first can
do that. Or scaring them into withdrawing the charges which
has happened 5 times before. But going with a lawyer
guarantees your criminal record since they can only defend
and you know you're guilty if the law is alive. It's never
too late but you missed your chance to play a heroic role in
the medpot rock opera. 

----
Lothar
OK, Sledman. One last thing. 
Your question to me in PM regarding the motion to quash made 
it appear that the motion was based on the s.7 right of use 
based on preventative medicine, so I answered accordingly. 
JCT: But it's not. That's the challenge in Step 5. 
L: In that situation, you would have to take the stand and 
make admissions. Now it would appear that the motion is 
soley based on the Kreiger issue. In which case, you would 
not have to make any admissions. 
JCT: Okay. Right. He corrected his earlier mistake. Smart. 
L: Remember, I can only answer the questions as posed to me, 
and if they contain incorrect info, you'll get an incorrect 
answer as it applies to the real situation. I can see in 
your PM that Turmel is going mental over that issue. ;)
JCT: Why not go mental over the kid being told that his 
motion to quash made him admit possession which took him out 
of the current play? You have to understand, if he had not 
sought your advice and just followed mine, there would 
probably be a reserved decision right now by a Manitoba 
judge our Ontario people could have cited as being Hitzig-
proofed. I can put my assets into action almost 
instantaneously, unlike any reputable lawyer who must be far 
more prudent in spending his client's money on long-shots. 
Since my people don't spend any money on me and do it all 
themselves, the concerns of lawyers about free long-shots 
are no longer germane. So sure, when the kid who could have 
added such great pressure to our Johnson and Nielsen judges 
sounded like he might now show while we needed him, sure I  
was heatedly disappointed. When Marc "The Narc" Emery made 
an offer to fund a slow lawyerly challenge, I figured the 
kid had been completely body-checked out of the Johnson-
Nielsen plays. I knew that with your lawyerly concerns and 
Emery's offer to fund a slow challenge, he was probably out 
of the play which is why I didn't push and only used a 
charge out of Manitoba as a bluff from thereon in. It sure 
seemed to have scared them out of filing their Johnson 
Factum until the midnight before the hearing. When was the 
last time you remember a Crown defying an Order to produce a 
a factum until after a later date? The attack out of 
Manitoba really had them worried but now they know he's 
effectively been nullified. At least we can say that a 
lawyer has accepted that it's a freebie nothing-to-lose-but-
time shot before landing back where you are now years later. 
L: Now, that makes the Kreiger motion safe to do. You have 
nothing to lose by filing it pre-trial when you are making 
no admissions. 
JCT: Good advice finally. 
L: It's still incorrect in law owing to the issue of denial 
of "leave to appeal" to the SCC as opposed to actually 
winning an appeal in the SCC, but it won't hurt to try. 
JCT: He's got a wrong understanding of the final effect 
after the SCC decision. Right? 
L: Do up the motion and show it to duty counsel on your 
first appearance, or file it yourself. 
JCT: Good advice. He's turning our way. 
L: But just keep in mind what I've been telling you, the 
Krieger issue is live in Alberta only as regards medicinal 
use issues. 
JCT: The Court of Appeal noted "Judge Acton struck down 
S.7." Not 'struck down S.7 for those with medical need." 
Medical need is not mentioned. Just that she struck it down. 
It's for all. Where does anyone read medicinal use into the 
Costigan decision? 
L: You may have a Justice of the Peace in your remand court 
instead of a Judge. That would be good for you, they're not 
lawyers and often *** things up nicely. If you get lucky 
and get a stupid one, you may get your motion. The Crown 
will immediately appeal of course, 
JCT: Did the motion win? Or lose? Or do they just appeal no 
matter what?  
L: and then 4 months later you'll end up in front of a real 
judge in Superior court and the motion will be heard 
properly. 
JCT: The Nielsens were offered their Superior Court date one 
week later. It's usually on 3 days notice if you push. 
Without needing time to fund-raise to pay the lawyers, 
things can move pretty fast.  
L: These things do happen, that's why there are appeal 
courts. 
Turmel is fucked on two fronts: 
1) the leave to appeal issue
2) the concurrent jurisdiction issue. 
What I mean by concurrent jurisdiction is that the only 
court that is binding on all of Canada is the SCC. When 
leave to appeal was denied in Kreiger, that left it at the 
level of the Alberta Court of Appeal. While that court is 
technically a higher court than the one you will be in, just 
as the every other Court of Appeal in every other province 
is, the precedents are not binding at all. The lowest 
Justice of the Peace in the lowest traffic court of your 
province can ignore the decisions of the highest court of 
any other province.  Cheers. ;)
JCT: Would the Crown have dropped all charges across Canada 
unless the Parker Court of Appeal decision which made the 
news for striking down S.4  did not apply across all Canada? 
They dropped all 4000 charges across Canada. If Parker's 
Order repealing S.4 was binding on Canada, why not Krieger's 
Order repealing S.7? 
----
sledman jones
Here's the answer i got when i posed the question What does 
this mean? 
>the SCC denied Leave to Appeal not the appeal itself. 
The simple answer to your question is that if an appeal to 
the Supreme Court of Canada (or any appeal court) is 
dismissed without reasons (usually this relates to an 
application for leave to appeal), the decision appealed 
from, that of the Court of Appeal in the situation you have 
referred to, remains "valid," as if it had not been appealed 
from. 
What does this mean?
----
Lothar
It means he's wrong. 
JCT: Actually, it is the opinion of the Chief Justice of the 
BC Courts. Noreen Evers send him the question and that was 
his answer. So Lothar says the Chief Justice is wrong. I 
hope he goes on to explain why...
L: That's the key to all of this. Like I said, that issue 
was the exact subject of and entire hour of presentations at 
the 2003 criminal law conference in eastern Ontario. Sigh. 
It looks like I'm going to have to go into the office to dig 
up that paper and the caselaw on the subject. 
JCT: That's it? He doesn't remember why the answer is wrong, 
he'll go dig it up, but he's sure the answer is wrong. No 
explanation, just "bunk." Neat he didn't know it was a reply 
from the BC Chief Justice. Har har har har. 
L: Seriously, it's a settled issue. It doesn't surprise me 
that he doesn't know that, because a lot of Crowns don't 
even seem to know it. We had that issue come up on two 
different impaired driving trials last year where the Crown 
tried to argue what Turmel is arguing. They lost. 
JCT: The Crown tried to argue "what Turmel is arguing." 
Where? When? What's that? That appeal decisions which are 
not overturned by the SCC also rule? 
L: I'll get you the material. Give me an hour or so, I just 
got out of the shower. I'm still drinking tea and getting 
organized here. ;)
----
sledman jones
Thanks Lothar. So basically, even if I was to file this 
motion I would lose based on the Krieger decision. Another 
reason to forget about this idea and just go with a lawyer
----
Lothar
Ok, here we go. I can't find a copy of the paper on my 
hardrive, so I'm going to have to type it out (the relevant 
part).
Now, this is binding from the perspective of the senior 
appellate courts of the provinces (including yours) because, 
obviously, the SCC cannot rule on it's own refusal of leave 
to appeal, since...well...it never heard the appeal..;)
First off, a quote from the highest authority, The House of 
Lords in Gilbert-Ash (Northern) Ltd. V. Modern Engineering 
(Bristol Ltd. [1973] 3 AII E. R. 195 at p. 214 (H.L.):
" Refusal to Leave to Appeal does not imply approval of this 
house of a judgment sought to be appealed against. That 
judgment carries the same authority as any other unappealled 
judgment of the Court of Appeal - neither more, nor less".
^^^ This has been accepted by the high courts of the 
provinces, notably in R. v. Decoste (1984) 15 C.C.C. (3d) 
289. N.S.C.A.
As well by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Santeramo 
(1976) 32 C.C.C. (2d) 34. :
"......It is true that the conduct of the trial and argument 
on appeal raised, inter alia, issues relevant to those in 
this case and that the appeal from conviction was dismissed 
by this court. However, there were no reasons for judgment 
delivered to this court, and of course there were none 
delivered on the refusal of the application to leave to 
appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. I do not think that 
we should assume that the higher court intended to determine 
these issues, nor do I think that we must necessarily accept 
that this court, by dismissing the appeal, resolved the 
issue I am here concerned with. "
Allrighty? 
You see what I mean now, the highest courts of the 
provinces, and the House of Lords (the that high courts 
consider an authority, although not binding) are saying that 
leave to appeal dismissed means......"leave to appeal 
dismissed." - and that's that. 
Ok, that was me going to the office when I took the day off. 
You're lucky I only live a few blocks away, ya ***. :)
You owe me a beer. :D
You can send that to Turmel if you want, but I find the 
replies that you've been pm'ing from him very disturbing, 
like looking into a bucket of squirming eels. The guy is 
unbalanced. 
JCT: I already handled how the above isn't relevant. 
L: "The Crown is afraid of the Claws of Turmel"???? What the 
hell was that all about :confused:
JCT: Alan Young told them Turmel was just a "paper tiger." 
----
sledman jones
I'd be happy to buy you a whole case, but according to my 
court order I'm not allowed to drink. 
JCT: I gotten conditions changed. It's easy. 
 
GG: Wouldn't want the same rat who got me on this pot charge 
to see me buying beer. So I guess what your saying is that 
the Krieger case doesn't help me at all and it wouldn't be a 
good move on my part to use it. I sent your post to 
Mr.Turmel and to his medpot forum and I will post back with 
his comments.
----
sledman jones 
heres Mr.Turmels reply to my last email. Waht do you make of 
this Lothar?
>JCT: More lawying from Glenn Gray's friend:... 
JCT: I've posted this this already under "Manitoba lawyer 
gets it right." 
>JCT: So what's hard to get? The Alberta Court of Appeal 
ruling striking down cultivation was not over-turned by the 
Supreme Court of Canada so Krieger repeals cultivation. 
---
Lothar
No no no no... what is "binding from the perspective of the 
senior appellate courts" is that a dismissal of leave to 
appeal by the SCC means nothing. Not Krieger!!
JCT: That something "means nothing" is binding? 
L: That whole thing I wrote out for you was in response to 
you and his issues regarding the refusal of leave to appeal. 
It had nothing to do with concurrent jurisdiction save that 
it says kreiger is only good for Alberta. 
JCT: At least he admits it's good to quash all marijuana 
charges in Alberta. Now to get him to admit it's all of 
Canada and it helps our cases. 
L: He's still confused. Look at the above threads and what I 
said about concurrent jurisdiction. He thinks that the 
Alberta Court of Appeal is Binding on all of Canada???? 
JCT: Wasn't Parker's Court of Appeal judgment declaring S.4 
of no force and effect which let Turmel force them to drop 
the 4000 charges???? 
L: Since when is Alberta in superior jurisdiction over 
Canada? 
JCT: Right away but especially when all appeals are 
exhausted and the Supreme Court backed up the Provincial 
Court. How close? 
L: Think about it. does it make sense that Alberta can make 
Manitoba law?
JCT: "Make,' no. "Strike down," yes. Isn't that how it 
works? But "make," of course not, unless you believe in Alan 
Young's Hitzig-Myrden resurrection. Luckily we're claiming 
Krieger "strike down" which courts can do, not that Krieger 
struck up like the Hitzig Court may not do. It's the 
government claiming the Hitzig "makes new penal law". Not 
us. 
L: Look man, call up the registrar of any courthouse, call 
up any lawyer, call up any Crown Attorney's office and ask 
them this: "Is an Alberta Court of Appeal decision binding 
on all of Canada, or just compelling?" Seriously, I've done 
all I can.
JCT: Okay. If it's not binding when it's ruled upon by a 
province's highest court and not over-turned on appeal, is 
it binding? Parker was caused the 4000 and it wasn't even 
appealed to the top! Why not Krieger which was appealed and 
was not overturned? 
----
sledman jones
I see what your saying Lothar and it makes sense to me. I 
phoned a legal aid lawyer today and he said that I should 
discuss it with my atty when I was given one and he could 
sort this out for me, but the guy I spoke to didn't feel 
there was grounds for a motion to quash. 
JCT: He looked into where the Krieger court said "She struck 
S.7" and doesn't think it's grounds tho Lothar says it's 
good in Alberta. Right. Lothar now accepts Krieger killed 
prohibition in Alberta while this guy doesn't yet. 
GG: I'm gonna just go to my court appearance and let my 
lawyer have a look at the details of my case, and I will ask 
him to look at this motion to quash as well. When I know the 
details of both my case and of his feeling about this motion 
I will start a new post detailing both.
JCT: So, the Johnsons and Nielsens get no Hitzig-immune 
reinforcements charging out of Manitoba and will have to 
fight Hitzig in Ontario, our weakest arena, though we do 
have the threat of the Noreen Evers Krieger Quash in Hitzig-
less B.C.
Remember, we say that the judges have the power to strike 
laws down, we say they don't have the power to make laws up. 
Notice how that issue is never addressed 
----
inflateablesoulmate 
did sledman go to jail?... awaiting appeal?...
what happened? 
-------------------------------
 
Lothar 
No. Sledman hasn't even had his first appearance yet. He'll 
be back to let us know what's up. If a trial date were to be 
set for him, it'd be at least 6 months away. 
-------------------------------
 
inflateablesoulmate 
noted... oh k... all that said now... if he was in alberta 
would the kreiger situation work in his favor?
and why... in that article originally posted in the news 
about the case from cyberclass Do the headings say all of 
canada when (youd think) the initial reporter should've 
known that the albertacourt of appeal doesnt make anything 
binding to other provinces... if that makes any sense.
Shouldnt Emery or Turmel have known the same?... or their 
lawyers?...  All seems pretty messed up to me.
neat thread tho. I would suck at terms... glad youre here:
----
 
sledman jones 
My next court date is set for Mar 8. Check out the posts on 
this link for even more confusion.
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/MedPot/
If you have any insight I'd love to hear it 
----
 
Lothar 
Well, there's not much more that can be said, He still has 
the Leave to Appeal issue stuck sideways in his cranium, 
apparently. 
JCT: Then forget my issue and answer "inflateablesoulmate" 
who asked: if he was in alberta would the kreiger situation 
work in his favor?
L: Just remember to ask your lawyer about how binding a 
dismissal of Leave is on all of Canada. That's the heart of 
this issue. 
JCT: Then ask how binding the decision by a province's 
highest court where leave to appeal was denied by the 
Supreme Court of Canada is on all Canada. 
L: Forget about all that preventative usage stuff, if that's 
not what he's attempting to argue, then it's no longer 
relevant to our discussion here. 
JCT: It's not relevant until Step 4, the motion to argue 
medical value to healthy people too. Are you saying not to 
even try it as a constitutional challenge a la Parker before 
trial? 
L: No wonder in all his posts the Crown, other lawyers and 
the Courts are looking at him like he has two heads. 
JCT: It all sounds so crazy to the lawyer. 
L: He says it's a "cover up" of course. How convenient. 
biglaugh: 
JCT: How else to explain the Calgary media fooling Lothar by 
reporting Krieger was for only Krieger when it struck down 
S.7? Accidental? Bad luck? Sure helped the prohibitionists 
bust an extra quarter million people and kept the courts and 
the lawyers busy too. Say, maybe they can't see it because 
they profit from it's continuation? But that would imply 
corruption of their souls. 
----
 
>From: "sledman jones" <slsnodrifters@hotmail.com>
>To: turmel@ncf.ca, johnturmel@yahoo.com
>Subject: Update on My case in Manitoba
>Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 01:51:36 +0000
GG: I just want to drop you a line and fill you in. In a 
roundabout way Marc Emery offered to fund a lawyer for me 
thru DrGreenthumbs. But he did not do it directly.
JCT: Hey, he offered any resisters a go-slow lawyer. That's 
helping?
GG: I have yet to even get an email from him stating his 
intentions.
JCT: Right, he said you should contact him. Me, I begged but 
I no money to offer.  
GG: My court date was remanded to Mar 8 2005, buying me some 
time to mull over just what I can do. I still find your 
approach to this very appealing but I am scared to do it all 
by myself.
JCT: No one else can do it for you except those who precede 
you now. It could be all over tomorrow or Tuesday. It should 
be all over tomorrow if the Superior Court hears the 
contempt motion. Then we get into Frankel knowing the law 
was dead and whether he should have told the cops the law 
was dead before they busted you and everyone else. Get it? 
Our team aren't scared! Our team are righteously angry at 
being busted under a law the top Crown Attorney admits has 
been repealed.  
GG: I believe I still have the right to file these motions 
and I am willing to do so still. 
JCT: As long as you never plead "not guilty" and "stand mute 
pursuant to section 606(1), then you can always raise the 
issue without leave of the judge. If you plead not guilty, 
then you need his permission. Better to never plead. 
GG: But I do not understand many of the things that the 
Johnsons and the Nielsens are saying, especially in front of 
a judge. 
JCT: Sorry but it's not that hard. Unless you trained to be 
a lawyer. Otherwise, it's all simply laid out in the 
timeline.htm I tend to KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid at all 
times which makes a lawyer not getting so fascinating to 
watch. Much like an economist can never grasp that banks 
don't lend out their depositors' funds, so too, lawyers 
can't grasp what it's not in their interest to get. 
GG: I am a fraid that I will be intimidated into dropping my 
motion if the judge hearing my case was to ask some of the 
questions they were asking in the Johnson case.
JCT: Learn Johnson's answers. When he got their factum and 
called to get the answers, it took us no more than 10 minutes 
to have him completely prepared to counter every argument. 
It's not hard playing all aces, no matter how bad you think 
you play. My job is to arm you with the Aces and it's your 
job to learn when to play them like everyone else.  
GG: I was scared enuf at my first court appearance. I simply 
do not understand alot of this.
JCT: It's all baffle-gab. You don't need to understand it. 
It hasn't stood up to good old logic yet. The Crown's been 
on the run in all our cases all along. Don't you feel it? 
Imagine them having me with a 3.3K life-sentence and 
dropping it to an under 3K bust to avoid a jury. Does that 
sound like confidence? And they still haven't won denying me 
my jury and my life-sentence gamble
GG: If that makes me stupid, then so be it.
JCT: It may make you feel stupid to not understand the 
baffle-gab but finally, they have to get down to English 
where we win. 
GG: I do not want to hurt any of my chances.
JCT: Going on offence for a couple of years never takes away 
your chance to go on defence. It's just that lawyers aren't 
trained to do offence, only defence. And it's expensive to 
do offence, unless you do it yourself. That's why my do-it-
yourself offensive kits are so effective. 
GG: I understand that your team is making great strides in 
their respected cases and I hope that will give me more ammo 
to fight my case, or to have it dropped.
JCT: If we're lucky, it will be won before you have another 
appearance in court.  
GG: As I said before, I want to file your motion to quash 
and to help further the cause, but I wish I had a coach, so 
to speak, to help me with all the answers to the questions I 
do not understand.
JCT: The medpot-discuss group you are now subscribe to can 
answer all your questions. They've lived it fresh. I 
couldn't even imagine what butterflies feel like having been 
at this for a quarter century but they can tell you the 
highs and lows of offensive plays when you're not a lawyer. 
I can also bet that Richard Johnson had one of the greatest 
adrenalin-pumping days of combat in his life. And he's got 
his tape-recorded souvenir of the occasion. 
GG: I can't go into a courtroom and stand before a judge to 
say "I don't know".
JCT: "I don't know which Ace to play?" It's the judge's job 
to help you pick the right Ace. Not to trick you up. He has 
to see that the system treats you fair when you don't have a 
pro doing it for you. Don't underestimate the value of not 
having a lawyer and making the judge take over certain 
concerns about your rights. 
GG: Thats the reason I wanted to find a lawyer to stand with 
me.
JCT: No one can't understand taking time to think it over. 
Tho it did cost you a measure of glory you could not have 
known came attached. 
GG: Or someone else with some of the answers. Why don't you 
take some time off and come and help me fight this battle?
JCT: I've built you guided missile artillery. All you have 
to do is pull the trigger, sit back and say "I have nothing 
more to say, it's all been written down." Is the law dead or 
alive? Really. Everyone has this drilled into them. Either 
"can I have a moment to consult with or call my coach, like 
Richard did once at the last hearing, or "My written 
argument suffices." Without sounding too condescending, you  
just leave the building and aiming the artillery to your 
general of combat engineers and press the button when you 
see the enemy in sight. 
GG: I hope you can understand my position and maybe you can 
provide some insight.
JCT: By the time March rolls around, you may be chomping on 
the bit to launch an attack yourself. Actually, you can file 
your motion to quash to be heard on 30 days notice to the 
Crown. On offence, you pick the date of your charge. 
Having you sitting in reserve waiting to charge out of 
Manitoba still has to worry the Crown. 
As for your lawyer friend, he's no worse than most and 
certainly better than most. He accepted the truth a couple 
of times and even though it had to be beaten of of him, it 
still surprised me. 
His admitting Krieger was a freebie put you on the right 
track. Actually, it kind of cinched you waiting to charge in 
Manitoba, didn't it, by his explaining you have nothing to 
lose. So the Crown has to worry about any situation where 
having you charge can hurt them. We'll leave it at that but 
you keep in mind you may be asked to launch the freebie 
attack on a moment's notice and we'll need you prepared if 
that day should arise. 
So, though I really beat up your friend, he's better than 
most. And he's brought Krieger to the attention of both 
Crown and Defence Attorneys. Quite a good thing. 
I'm a believer that God works in mysterious ways and if he 
didn't want you charging out at this time, there may have 
been a reason. You are always a threat and there may be 
another use for you in other ways coming up. 
Do your homework. Get armed. Practice your armaments, ahem, 
arguments with your friends. And hope a situation arises 
where you can add to the assault in your own unique way. 
I'm an adult pissed off about having to hide from cops to 
enjoy herb. I won't take it and I'm going to fight with my 
all. Besides, facing a major jail term gives me no choice 
but to wage all-out war. 
I hope the enemy are feeling it.
--
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