TURMEL: Gravel Krieger Release hearing

From: John Turmel (bc726_at_FreeNet.Carleton.CA)
Date: 01/30/05 

Date: 30 Jan 2005 00:38:39 GMT

 
JCT: It had all worked out so seamlessly, something would

have had to screw it up. Get service with 1 minute to spare
on Monday, the presumptuous minimum notice application gets
fast-tracked, presumptuous because lawyers probably need to
wait weeks while I jump the queue screaming "jail on a dead
law is abuse with priority." Who's going to argue with that?
Still, either they knew I was coming or just know better
than to cause hassle when I never do. So it all worked so
smoothly, it felt like a dream.

The dream started to come apart early. I get a call from
Dominic to say that they've played Gilles Mailloux's story
on him all morning on CHOT-TVA with expanded coverage
showing the size of the bust (4000 plants, second largest
bust around, enterprising gardener. I just lucked into one
of the biggest farm raids in a long time!

With all that wonderful press lead-in, one glitch was that
he wasn't on the computer to be driven to court! Aw darn.
This has happened before. To me personally the time I was in
the Don Jail.

I'd given myself up the night before my appeal to spend the
night in custody, a rule, and because the Crown only served
me their documents right in the jail on the night before
(!), they made the guards let me keep the stack of books.
Being different upset some guards and it lasted to the next
morning. Surely, I didn't have to arrange my own Order of
transport to the court! But I wasn't on the computer either.
List in those days (1981). I told the guards there was a big
mistake but they weren't worried. Then suddenly, around
10:30 when the Ontario Court of Appeal realized I wasn't
there, I'm suddenly hot-footed out to a private car for
transport to the court. I thought it served them right not
to have looked into it.

I just visualized the Crown mentioning whatever hadn't been
done and the judge authorizing that the prisoner be rushed
before him. I was actually looking forward to the song and
dance explaining why the self-represented appellant wasn't
there and I wasn't particularly worried that the jail or the
Crown could be screwing up. I'd even called Mr. Godri the
previous day to remind him that he'd better check or have
his excuses ready for what might be a big show. So I called
and left a message at 7:30 saying Gravel wasn't on the bus
and could he do something about it?

I got there around 9am and could hear three clerks outside
the still-locked courtroom discussing the special hearing
for the "bail appeal" at 9:45am. Then a few jailers came
along and there were calls made. Then, one guard on the
phone announced that there would be a delay in #1 court. I
figured they were racing to get the kid to court. Still, the
court is unlocked and everyone is ready to go.

I saw Regis Bouchard of the Le Droit checking the courtroom
and made sure to give him the accused gardener's
documentation and stressed Appendixes 2,5,10 (2: Krieger
Costigan decision for Alberta Court of Appeal panel, 5:
Frankel avowal of guilt, 10: Krieger McLachlin decision for
Supreme Court of Canada panel).

Then a CBC-TV French cameraman and reporter arrived and I
had time to explain the documentation to Judith Godbout-St-
Cyr. I love pointing out the Oct 7 2003 date of my Doherty
Order on my request to declare the law dead in 2001 on Terry
Parker Day and then pointing to the Globe & Mail story of
how they're dropping 4000 charges between 2001 and Oct 7,
same date as my Order. Then ask "if they had to drop the
pending charges, shouldn't they have fixed all the
convictions while the law was dead?" They have to nod.
"That's the Parker scandal, people whose records since
Parker Day were not erased. 100,000.

Then I differentiated the Frankel scandal of busting 100,000
Canadians knowing the law wasn't valid. Knowing he'd been
told the law wasn't valid. I think everyone has a civil suit
against David Frankel, doesn't Dominic who sat in jail 6
months while Frankel knew the law was invalid?

She mentioned she had spoken to lawyer Jacques Belley, a
long-standing criminal lawyer I've known for 25 years since
we played cards together and told him he had been fired.
Great! I'd been trying to contact him to explain his defence
counseling wasn't being fired, it was being laid-off until
the offence is over and maybe there's a need for defence. So
she went up and told him he'd been fired and he had to
inform her that he still retained carriage of the case
before the court.

Oops. When I'd spoken to Dominic earlier, I'd told him he
had to lay off his lawyer to make this work. Instead, he
gave Jacques the copies of the motions he'd just signed,
minus the Appendixes so Belley may not believe what he's
reading without seeing the Orders. Jacques did tell Dominic
that he wasn't going to argue anything he hadn't written
himself. Bet he hasn't heard about my 4000 drug wins yet.
Anyway, I still hadn't spoken with Jacques and now the
reporter had just antagonized him.

Anyway, she took off to see what the other reporters were
doing on it and I had time to explain how it all fit to her
cameraman and why nobody found out. A media lie. That too is
pretty stunning.

One last question on the media misrepresentation of the
Krieger strike down for everyone as just another personal
win for a sick guy. Just another needy marijuana story. More
of the same. How did the TV-news report on the story? Did
they mention S.7 being struck down? Did the Calgary TV-news
also represent it as a personal rather than national loss
for the Crown? Or not show and just read the newspaper
versions? How about radio? Someday, someone in some lawsuit
will dig these up and we'll find out whether it was an even
greater cover-up than just 2 reporters.

At 9:30, they announcement that the "matrimonial cases"
would be heard first. The guard told me the other case would
probably happen around 10am.

Finally, around 9:45 Judith returned and said that the Crown
Desrosiers had the case put off until next week Feb 3. I
asked if the judge signed off on it and she presumed he had.
At least you can get a tape in Quebec to check what
happened.

I went up to the 3rd level where all the press hang out and
Mr. Desrosiers was pointed out to me. I went over,
introduced myself, and asked what had happened. He was
pleasant and explained that if carriage of the case is held
by a defence attorney, he has to fill out the application
for the prisoner to be brought to court, not the Crown. I
didn't even say "but he's representing himself" because,
obviously, the computer shows he isn't if he has a lawyer.
So no request for the prisoner to be present was made by
either side. Pity Jacques didn't warn me.

Sad but as long as he has a lawyer on his dossier, there was
nothing I could do to get him there for his special date. By
next week, he'll lay off his lawyer for the first offensive
part of the game and call him back for defence in the bottom
of the inning.

So I went to the Registry to check how it works for
prisoners without lawyers and lo and behold, there's Jacques
Belley. He was teed off because the CBOFT-TV reporter had
told him I'd said he'd been fired. Belley said I was
dreaming to get him out on recog. I told him clearly that
he was being laid off to be called back to do his expertise
on defence after the kid had spent a couple of years doing
my expertise on offence. I love that line too.

I then pointed out I wasn't mad at him for not knowing about
Krieger since it had been hidden. But I would be mad at him
for not wanting to know about Krieger.

I showed him the Appendixes 2,5,10, Alberta strikes down
S.7, Crown Frankel admits it, Supreme Court backs it. He
said "You're telling me that S.7 of the drug laws is gone?"
I said "yes." He said "So home come it's still in the
Criminal Code?"

They tricked him and the bench and he should be mad about
it. That's what the scandal was about. I could have answered
that Justice Doherty must have gone to a different law
school because lawyers like Jacques expect the Code to be
precise and Doherty said they didn't have to do a reprint,
the judges would remember which laws in the book were no
longer valid and which still were. Of course, the judge said
that in the unheralded but now oft-used Turmel Aitken loss
that established that they don't have to reprint new
legislation when laws are striken down, judges and lawyers
can remember.

I told him he had the right to be pissed off at the Crown
and at the media for having been tricked. Even I was tricked
for more than year so how can I be mad? So if I didn't
notice it too, how much blame can I hold to the lawyers who
expect the law in the book to be up to date and precise.

Anyway, I told him it wasn't too late for him to take over
the challenge and save me the trip back to Ottawa next week.
I'd much prefer having a senior attorney who admits he and
the bench were taken in by the scam to the kid who has to
convince the bench and the bar blew it all alone.

So there's no story other than the story has been put off
till next week but can't be ducked.

And it's Superior Court so the Elliot Lake decision isn't
binding if it loses, especially when the only way to escape
the Krieger logic is by claiming "my bosses made me do it."
The "I'm bound by Hitzig to abuse the process of the court
in Ontario." So if it wins, her decision will help the kid
and if it loses, it won't hurt him in another province in a
higher court.

So kits got passed out to Le Droit, French CBC-TV, and a
lawyer who should know me better than to think I'm flaky. I
still haven't given up the chance he can be convinced that
the law died despite his not having read about it in the
papers.

Imagine my having trouble with the lawyers who expect the
law to be precisely printed when it's not being precisely
printed is what my beef is all about. Again, that's David
Frankel's doing again.

I was a little upset that the Elliot Lake decision would not
be looming while the kid's case was hurt. Having it put off
to past Tuesday will hurt. He could have gotten out only on
the basis that maybe Serre might quash the charges. But now
there's also Judge Rogers in Sturgeon Falls who has also
reserved on the case.

No matter how depressing the thought of not having our
Krieger challenge heard, I couldn't help but be amused at
the thought of them wondering if I'd jerked them around into
wasting time on purpose. Turmel calls a wedding and the
groom doesn't show. Har har har har. And it's not cold feet
because the chaperon is the bride's father!

So it was adjourned off to Feb 3 when he has a normal court
appearance slated next Thursday when his motion will be
heard.

So how did Le Droit report on the First Krieger challenge in
Quebec. More of the same!!!

Le Droit
Vendredi le 28 janvier 2005
Regis Bouchard

Gravel invoque les arguments de Turmel mais ne se presente
pas en cour
Gravel invokes Turmel's arguments but doesn't show for court

Meme derriere les barreaux Raymond Turmel continue a rallier
des gens a sa cause dont d'autres detenus qui epousent sa
theorie a l'effet qu'une section de la loi sur les
stupefiants etait inconstitutionelle.
Even behind bars, Raymond Turmel contiues to rally people to
his cause including other inmates who espouse his theory
that a section of the drug laws is unconstitutional.

JCT: Of course, we all know this is wrong. Krieger proved it
was unconstitutional to get it killed. We're just here for
the funeral.

Le dernier en lisse est Dominic Gravel, 30, de Gatineau, a qui
la cour a refuse, en aout dernier, une remise en liberte a
la suite de son arrestation le 29 juillet, une semaine apres
la decouverte de 5,000 plants de cannabis dans la region
d'Otter Lake.
The last to file line is Dominic Gravel, 30, of Gatineau,
for whom the court refused bail last August after his arrest
on July 29, one week after 5000 cannabis plants were
discovered in the Otter Lake region.

Conseille par les freres Raymond et John Turmel, il a
depose, en cour Superieur, une demande de revision de
cautionnement qu'il aurait aime pouvoir presenter hier, mais
helas, c'est sans compter sur les procedures normales qui
doivent etre suivies, que le requerant soit ou non
represente par un avocat.
Counselled by the brothers Raymond and John Turmel, he filed
in Superior Court a motion to vary his bail conditions
which he would have liked to present yesterday but, alas, it
was without following the normal procedures which must be
followed whether the applicant be represented by a lawyer or
not.

JCT: Actually, the clerk told me that when the applicant is
an inmate who is not represented by a lawyer, then it is the
Crown's responsibility to file the 1-page form requesting
his attendance in court. So if he's not represented, it's
not the same procedure as when he has a lawyer, which
screwed up Dominic's appearance last Thursday.

Gravel n'etait pas present hier, ayant omis de prendre les
mesures necessaires afin d'assurer son transport de la
prison au palais de justice de Gatineau.

Gravel wasn't there yesterday, having failed to take the
necesary measures to ensure his transport from the prison
to the courthouse.

John Turmel qui a travaille avec son frere Raymond dans le
dossier de Dominic Gravel, croyait que c'etait la
responsibilite de la couronne de voir au transport d'un
detenu, ce qui n'etait de toute evidence pas le cas, puisque
Gravel est le requirant et, a ce titre, il lui appartenait a
lui ou ses collaborateurs de demander son transport.

John Turme who worked with his brother Raymond in Dominic
Gravel's file, believed that it was the responsibility of
the Crown to see to the transport of an inmate, which by the
evidence wasn't the case, since Gravel is the applicant and,
as such, it's up to him or his supporters to request his
transport.

JCT: Not when there's a lawyer on the file. I can't do it.
Maybe he could.

Selon nos informations, le dossier signe par Gravel est
essentiellement le fruit du travail de Raymond Turmel qui a
fait son entree le 18 janvier dernier au centre de detention
de Gatineau apres que la cour d'appel du Quebec eut rejete
son appel du verdict de culpabilite et de la sentence de 20
mois que lui a impose le judge Jean Pierre Plouffe.
Notamment pour une accusation pour la possession de
marijuana dans le but d'en faire le traffic.

According to our information, the dossier signed by Gravel
is essentially the fruit of the work of Raymond Turmel who
entered the Gatineau Detention Centre last January 18 after
the Quebec Court of Appeal rejected his appeal of the guilty
verdict and 20 month sentence imposed by Judge Jean Pierre
Plouffe. Notably on a charge of possession of marijuana for
the purpose of trafficking.

JCT: And of course, Gravel's Krieger non-constitutional
"unknown to law" challenge has nothing at all to do with the
Ray Turmel "constitutional" challenge. Ray Turmel was
charged before Parker and was convicted before Krieger.
Gravel's new Krieger challenge can't be the same old thing
as the Turmel challenge which happened before Krieger was
handed down. In all the years Regis has been reporting on my
cases, this is his first real screw-up. And I even gave him
the motion with appendixes, all of which happened after Ray
was convicted.

Turmel alleguait alors l'inconstitutionalite de la loi, mais
aussi le fait qu'il cultivait ses 613 plants de mari afin de
repondre a la demande de malades, dont son epouse, pour qui
la consommation de mari avait une valeur therapeutique.

Turmel was alleging the unconstitutionality of the law, but
also that he was cultivating his 613 marijuana plants in
order to respond to the need of the sick, including his
wife, for whom consumption of marijuana had therapeutic
value.

JCT: And Dominic is not alleging the law is constitutionally
bad, he's alleging it's simply dead.

C'est essentiellement les memes arguments et la meme
jurisprudence qui ont servis lors d'autres croisades menes
par les freres Turmel, qu'avance Gravel dans sa requete.

Gravel is essentially advancing the same arguments and the
same jurisprudence which have served in other crusades waged
by the Turmel brothers.

JCT: And of course, that's completely false because Krieger
hadn't even been handed down when Turmel was convicted. If
he can repeat his error, I can repeat the correction.

On y denonce l'attitude de la couronne qui, selon le
requerant, continue a ignorer ces decisions des tribunaux
superieurs quant a l'inconstitutionalite de la loi.

They're denouncing the attitude of the Crown who, according
to the applicant, continues to ignore these decisions of the
superior tribunals as to the unconstitutionality of the law.

Le prochain rendezvous en cour Superieure est prevu le 3
fevrier.

The next Superior Court rendezvous takes place February 3.

These errors of fact had to be corrected so I wrote a letter
to the Editor of Le Droit.

Lettre au redacteur
Le Droit,
Email:

Article du 28 janvier 2005 dans Le Droit: Gravel
invoque les arguments de Turmel mais ne se presente pas en
cour. Regis Bouchard nous dit:
"C'est essentiellement les memes arguments et la meme
jurisprudence qui ont servis lors d'autres croisades menes
par les freres Turmel, qu'avance Gravel dans sa requete.
Turmel alleguait alors l'inconstitutionalite de la loi."

La decision sur laquelle toutes les recentes requetes en
Ontario, Colombie Britannique, et maintenant Gatineau, sont
basees sur la decision Krieger qui n'etait pas connue
lorsque Raymond Turmel fut trouve coupable. L'argument n'est
pas que la loi est constitionellement mauvaise, Krieger l'a
deja prouve, mais que la loi est maintenant morte.
Donc, ce ne sont pas essentiellement les memes arguments et
la meme jurisprudence que Raymond Turmel mais une nouvelle
attaque de John Turmel.

In the Le Droit article dated Jan 28 2005: Gravel invokes
Turmel's arguments but doesn't show up in court, Regis
Bouchard tells us:
Gravel is advancing essentially the same arguments and the
same jurisprudence which have served in other crusades waged
by the Turmel brothers."

The decision upon which all the recent motions in Ontario,
B.C., and now Gatineau, are based is Krieger which was not
even known when Raymond Turmel was convicted. The argument
isn't that the law is constitutionally bad, Krieger already
proved that, it's that the law is now repealed.
So, Gravel is not essentially advancing the same arguments
and the same jurisprudence as Raymond Turmel but a new
assault by John Turmel.

Hope they print the correction. 

--
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