TURMEL: Chuck & Noreen in BC court
From: John Turmel (bc726_at_FreeNet.Carleton.CA)
Date: 01/22/05
- Next message: The Trucker: "Re: Wages, Inflation and Social Security"
- Previous message: raylopez99: "Re: China GDP data corrupt [working paper]"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 22 Jan 2005 05:20:17 GMT
>Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:46:05 -0800
>From: wworld@island.net (Evers)
>Subject: [MedPot-discuss] Chuck's court
N: Chuck went to Court yesterday. Interesting, he was on the
bottom of the list and court was full so (3) of us went
outside for a smoke, just got outside, surprise, surprise,
Chuck was called into court. By the time we got back
upstairs, Chuck was before the judge and apparently CROWN
told the judge he was putting in a plea of not guilty - even
though he hadn't even been read the charges - so Chuck said
he wasn't doing that and the judge asked him how he was
pleading, so he said mute.
JCT: They all do that. No one ever offered me the chance to
plead guilty. They just booked a trial because the Duty
Counsel didn't find out for them. No one ever offered the
Nielsens a chance to plead guilty. They just booked a trial.
Here, the Crown tried to presume the setting and got stomped
good. "Mute" takes them all by surprise and now he can file
all the pre-plea motions he likes at any time.
N: His motion is to be heard on the 24 March - same day as
Kevin the kid.
JCT: I guess he never insisted on not having to live under
the cloud of a defective indictment for more than 30 days.
N: I asked Crown later about having all heard together, as
it is the same motion, (unknown to law) covering the same
issues, and probably the judge won't rule on mine on the
17th - (thereby confusing the issue and giving Crown another
opportunity) - She said no. (She also said it had already
been decided upon last year in Supreme Court. She told
Chuck Malmo Levine, She told the kid Clay, but she didn't
say which case to me). Is ANYONE aware of any other Supreme
Court RULINGS?? Anyways, I said, yes it had been decided
upon, in Krieger.
1. So I am requesting John show me a sample page of "Return
of Motion", for Chuck and the kid to be heard with mine.
JCT: Now that you both need one, why bother? Chuck didn't
need a motion returning it to an earlier date that you were
going to have to use. All he had to do was ask for a date
right after 30 days service. Then, once he had his February
13 date, you would have written:
TAKE NOTICE that the motion to quash served on Dec whatever
and presently returnable on March 17 2004 will be heard on
Feb 13 2004 at the same time as that as Chuck on the grounds
that the issues are identical.
N: 2. I also require some AFFADAVITs please.
JCT: That will turn your two-Ace Parker-Krieger hand into a
whole bunch of little cards too.
N: Believing that Crown will try to confuse issues,
JCT: Sounds you're going to help him.
N: and also believing that the Court (although I think I
have a fair judge) will only base it's decision on EVIDENCE,
I am requesting AFFADAVITS:
JCT: It's a pre-plea motion on whether the law is alive or
not. There are no affidavits necessary. Orders are. Case law
precedents are. What testimony can you possibly want to
introduce on whether the law is alive or not?
N: I will be bringing up the NATIONAL IMPORTANCE of this
ruling, and require EVIDENCE to that effect:
JCT: National importance is only an argument when you want
the Supreme Court of Canada to hear an appeal. It doesn't
count below. Why don't you send all those affidavits to the
Chief Justice McLachlin and tell her to hear my Supreme
Court application #30571 to declare all sections invalid? It
solves your problem and it's the only time national
importance counts. That's what I'm trying to say. Otherwise,
you are asking your judge if the law is alive, nothing else.
So stay focused and don't waste time on premature stuff.
N: I would appreciate an affidavit from:
Terry Parker: stating you are the Terry Parker in R v.
Parker. (something to the effect of): You had a
constitutional exemption for a year, Justice Pitt gave you
an exemption "till the Government complied" - which was
overturned, you do not qualify for MMAR (and believe it to
be unconstitutional anyway {if you want}), you again went to
court to get clarification of the matter {legal or not},
your application was dismissed, etc, etc. You believe there
to be no law. You are asking for a CLEAR RULING on the
status of law regarding marijuana.
JCT: And the judge says: What's his evidence have to do with
whether the statute is unknown to law. I'd always heard
Turmel motions were noted for their shortness and for
nailing opponents with Aces and never wasting the court's
time on irrelevant stuff.
N: Mark - same, (perhaps you could mention also that
although you are a section 56, you haven't qualified for
MMAR, and all the stress you have to go through every year
about getting your license, how many times you have had to
take the government to court, etc, etc) - You believe there
to be no law, but continue to try to follow the 'rules',
even though it takes such a toll on your health. To save
you the stress on having to deal with Hell'th Canada, ask
for a CLEAR RULING on the status of law regarding marijuana.
JCT: And the judge asks what Marc Paquette's ordeals with
Health Canada have to do with whether the statutes are no
longer known to law? What's the answer?
N: Nielsens: An affidavit explaining your charges and the
circumstances around them. Your actual situation (if you
want to include meduser, that is up to you). The escapades
you have had to endure (and costs) to try to get an answer
from the Ontario courts on the same issue. Although you
realize that provincial court judges don't necessarily have
to follow courts in other provinces, sometimes they do, so:
Asking for a CLEAR RULING on the status of law regarding
marijuana.
JCT: Sorry but telling your judge that thex judges of their
cases didn't even read their motions is no help in showing
that the statute is no longer know to law.
N: ??Johnsons?? - It seems you are not having any troubles
right now, but you may want to put in 'spirit of law
arguments'. (If you wish). I don't think I need anything
from you right now, but I am certainly open to suggestions.
xJohn - An affidavit that, in that truly believing there to
be no law, in that POLCOA, you went to Parliament Hill with
over 3 kg, and have now been charged with an offence of
under 3 kg 4(1), 5(1 or 2) - whichever it is, have since
been denied a jury trial, and stand to face jail time. (&
that you are waiting for the Supreme Court, etc, etc).
Asking for a CLEAR RULING on the status of law regarding
marijuana. Plus also please, your letter of the law, and
spirit of the law argument.
JCT: Why? What's the purpose of such testimony your judge
will ask. "I decide the law" so what's Turmel's opinion got
to with anything?" What's your answer?
N: Mike South/Rev. Ethier - someone please contact him - an
affidavit that you have been put in jail for cannabis
offences, you believe to be unknown to law. Ask for a CLEAR
RULING on the status of law regarding marijuana.
BudeLuv: (Manitoba?): Please give a detailed account of your
situation, explain that you are/will be affected by this
ruling (in that you are normally a law abiding citizen),
your views on POLCOA and ask for a CLEAR RULING on the
status of law regarding marijuana.
Also Michael Muirhead: (BC) - Please give a detailed
account of your situation, explain that you are/will be
affected by this ruling (in that you are normally a law
abiding citizen), your views on POLCOA and ask for a CLEAR
RULING on the status of law regarding marijuana. (In case
you don't have courts up there to get an affidavit signed,
possibly the postmaster can do it - they used to be able to)
Anyone else from another province other than Ontario would
be appreciated. Sledman? Anyone from PQ?
I have to have EVERYTHING before Crown 30 Days prior to the
17th March - which means the 14 or 15 Feb. Crown is in the
Courtenay office only on the 10 Feb, so would like
everything by the 5th Feb if possible.
JCT: Sorry but I can't recommend anyone waste their time
sending Noreen a whole bunch of stuff that does nothing more
tha make her feel safer. She plays the same Five Aces as
everyone else.
Hearts: Parker; Diamonds: Krieger; Spades: Turmel beats
Hitzig; Clubs: Turmel beats S.5; Joker stopped Parliament.
Sorry for being so terse but you didn't even try get an
early date and now you want everyone to waste their time on
armaments I have deemed unnecessary. Sometimes, you just
have to trust that the opponents have nothing and you have
the cards you need to win the pot.
N: Please email me individually, I will give you my address.
(not on the group board). I will reimburse everyone for
their affidavit, printing and postage costs, if requested,
but I would ask that people please keep costs to a minimum.
(eg. use a court duty lawyer to affirm the affadavits) - we
are on a disability income, so my funds are limited. I will
make all the copies here, so I will only need the originals.
JCT: Don't embarass us by going in with a whole bunch of
stuff that gets laughed out of court. I mean with the judge
questioning you on relevance and having piece after piece
thrown out as irrelevant. How can he treat your good stuff
seriously mixed in with the junk?
No judge has ever made fun of a Turmel argument, they always
"failed to see" or "saw no jurisdiction" but they never
laughed me out of court. No judge ever reported "Did I ever
catch Turmel out on a limb with no answer. Never."
You go in with a whole slew of non-related evidence and
you'll suffer that fate. And some judges can brutal when you
can't explain. I could be. I could have have been. So quit
wasting your time. You should have spent your time following
my instructions and getting your shot on the early date that
helps everyone, not urging wastages of time that help no
one.
N: Sorry this took so long to post. I live out of town, so
while there, I got lots of things done and didn't return
till late. Noreen
>Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:50:51 -0800
>From: wworld@island.net (Evers)
>Subject: Re: [MedPot-discuss] Chuck's court
Roger (majere) - are you in Quebec? If so, could you please
send me an affidavit, similar to the one I requested for
Michael. Thanx. Noreen
JCT: Sorry for being blunt but you didn't follow my winning
strategy but want to keep doing. There's nothing useful that
needs be done.
>Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:26:31 -0800
>From: wworld@island.net (Evers)
>Subject: Re: [MedPot-discuss] Chuck's court - ED
N: I will be bringing up the NATIONAL IMPORTANCE of this
ruling, and require EVIDENCE to that effect:
I would appreciate an affidavit from:
Ed: Perhaps you could send me an affidavit regarding the
national importance of this judge's decision, and introduce
into it your mandamus, the reasons behind it not going
through (weather, then prohibitive costs), your opinion (and
legal arguments) regarding POLCOA, Schedule I, and sections
4, 7, and 5 CDSA - what prior courts have NOT decided (and
dodged the issue), etc. (and of course the cases surrounding
it - I will copy the cases, you will not need to print
them).
JCT: Wonderful, You want to introduce an affidavit from the
Rev. Ed Pearson? The guy who screwed-up my Dupuis S.7
challenge, the guy who gave the Crown their excuse to get a
Hitzig stay? The guy I've called a narc mole or lunatic. And
you want Ed involved? Talk a real good shot at turning this
into real mess.
>Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:41:44 -0500 (Eastern StanTime)
>From: ed2411@cogeco.ca (ed pearson)
>Subject: Re: [MedPot-discuss] Chuck's court
EP: First you establish that the specific law applies to all
persons in Canada.
JCT: How long to you propose spending on explaining to a
Canadian judge that law applies to all persons? They don't
know? You need to tell them?
EP: Second, you establish through different judgments of the
Provincial Courts that the law is in a flux, contentious,
and/or equivocal.
JCT: That gives the chance to judge to use the "quash
because law is too muddled" argument rather than being
forced to admit the "law is too dead."
I don't raise the "things being muddled" while I think it's
pretty clear the law is dead. But since you're sure the
Crown is going to confuse things, you may follow Ed's advice
and one-up them by confusing things even more.
E: That accused and convicted offenders Province to Province
under that specific law treated unequally to the extent that
in some provinces the offence is not known to law and will
not be charged or prosecuted.
JCT: Again, a lesser argument that lets them escape from
having to admit that the "law is dead" by only accepting
it's considered dead elsewhere. The same line used after the
Windsor technicality which we know was wrong. All those
charges based on a win that ended up losing. All those
charges dropped because of the Windsor case during the
"summer of legalisation" were actually valid until they had
to be stayed with the 4000! So, actually, I lay claim to the
22 charges dropped by McAllister on his bogus reason but
just like his client JP got off anyway due to my case,
that's 4023 charges dropped before the lastest 5. 4028!
EP:That is the evidence you can show as a matter of law and
ask then that the Court follow fundamental principles of law
and the Rule of Law as spoken to in Charter of Rights and
Freedoms s. 1 and the preamble thereto/.
JCT: Noreen, you're turning your case into an Ed Pearson
mess. You must know the best way to insult me is to link me
with Pearson. Remember Malmo-Levine mentionining how Turmel
and Pearson would have to contribute to so me effort. I knew
he was dissing me to link me with a lunatic flake. You've
been subscribed to my reports for years and you've seen all
the damage Pearson's done. How many times he wanted to
complicate things with his legalese I had to prove wasn't
needed. And yet you invite his input to your case?
>Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:35:23 -0800
>From: wworld@island.net (Evers)
>Subject: Re: [MedPot-discuss] Chuck's court
>First you establish that the specific law applies to all
persons in Canada.
N: How do I establish that??
JCT: Har har har har. Are you ready to spend time detailing
how the constitution works for the judge.
>Second, you establish through different judgments of the
Provincial Courts that the law is in a flux, contentious,
and/or equivocal.=20
N: I am OK with this. This has already been established in
the BC Court. I will point it out.
JCT: Shouldn't it be established everywhere. Isn't this
common knowledge? More time spent proving common knowledge.
>That accused and convicted offenders Province to Province
under that specific law treated unequally to the extent that
in some provinces the offence is not known to law and will
not be charged or prosecuted.
N: Krieger fits that perfectly, although I believe that it
is being ignored in Alberta. It was also ignored here prior
to Chen's ruling. eg. Nicholls.
JCT: Even if you win another Chen "too muddled" victory, it
doesn't actually detract from our "too dead" challenges
elsewhere. It's just of no use to anyone else. You give the
judge the chance to credit some lesser card with the win. I
don't. I want Krieger and Parker Aces to be the reason for
the win. Not Chen Jack.
N: BTW. Who pays for witnesses to appear? I will be
subpoening an expert witness: an MMAR - for verification
that cannabis resin comes from the plant (He has used
marijuana for over 2 years).
A police officer - green team - 'expert witness'
1. to verify that cannabis resin comes from the plant.
2. I am thinking also that I can ask him (while on the
stand) his orders/views of the state of the law.
If I subpoena Paul Martin (Parliament makes laws) - or Irwin
Cotler (Justice Minister) - who has to pay for
travel/accommodations, etc. I called my local MP, John
Duncan, he will be at the Conservative meeting in Montreal
on the 17th March. I am trying for a local Liberal MP. I
am concerned about costs.
I want to establish that Parliament makes law. Can you
think of other ways this could be done?? Thanx. Noreen
JCT: What's the relevance of their evidence to whether S.4
and S.7 are known to law?
>Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:37:33 -0500 (Eastern StaTime)
>From: ed2411@cogeco.ca (ed pearson)
>Subject: Re: [MedPot-discuss] Chuck's court
EP: Well that is the most simple task:: Read the section
from the Criminal Code of Canada which applies to everyone
in Canada.
JCT: Make sure to spend lots of time on common knowledge.
>Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:40:39 -0500 (Eastern StTime)
>From: ed2411@cogeco.ca (ed pearson)
>Subject: Re: [MedPot-discuss] Chuck's court
EP: It may come from the plant but to do so you must perform
some act to extract it. For purposes of trafficking that is
production, manufacturing.. see definition CDSA s. 2
trafficking. Ed So unless you wish to prove you trafficked
please do not call that witness for the stated purpose.
JCT: What a lot of time Ed's got you wasting on proving
things that aren't needed. I can understand how you may have
missed the importance of your getting an date with all these
other complications to worry about.
KISS, Keep it simple stupid, is engineering elegance and
you're turning your challenge into a mess. Of course, with
every narc mole and moron urging you into wrong direction,
no wonder you haven't had time to listen to your
Abolitionist combat engineer.
Anyway, you're now out of the picture. I now have received a
deadline for my Supreme Court of Canada Replies and I'll be
able to mention the Nielsen, Ethier, Johnson results but not
yours. You could have had a major part in the rock opera
which now looks like it's turning into a messy bit part not
in at the finish.
I'm sorry but I can't let you waste the A-Team's time
building weaponry that isn't needed for this war. You must
appreciate how embarrassing it would be to be laughed out of
court because the evidence you want to introduce has no
bearing on the issue of whether the law has been repealed.
Listen to never-won-a-case Paster Ed and you deserve what
you get. No one's ever laughed an Engineer's case out of
court and I don't want yours to be the first after 4,028
straight wins.
Unless you can find someone else to file a 30-day notice to
quash and piggy-back, you're out of the game until March.
Nothing you can now do but bide time. Don't try to keep busy
by adding more and more and more to make your case less and
less elegantly engineered.
-- 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: The Trucker: "Re: Wages, Inflation and Social Security"
- Previous message: raylopez99: "Re: China GDP data corrupt [working paper]"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
