TURMEL: "Triple-Pimp Turmel" in Canada's Criminal Code

From: John Turmel (bc726_at_FreeNet.Carleton.CA)
Date: 02/03/05 

Date: 3 Feb 2005 03:49:30 GMT

JCT: I was in Ottawa provincial court #7 this Feb 02 2005
before a Judge Ann Alder asking for another adjournment of
my until my trial in the 3.3KG Parliament Hill Bust until
the Application for leave to appeal the Aitken refusal to
prohibit that trial has been ruled on by the Supreme Court
of Canada in a few months once I file the last documentation
later in the day.

I saw the 2005 edition of the Martin's Criminal Code of
Canada on a desk and asked the young Crown if I could peruse
it. They report on the outcome of the Big Five cases under
Drugs S.4 possession.

R. v. Turmel (Aitken) had made the book. My Aitken loss is
being touted in the Criminal Code of Canada as having
established that Section 5(2) was still alive while the
S.4(1) prohibition was officially dead. Of course, the Crown
have argued to the Supreme Court that the case isn't of
national importance to be reconsidered even though it is
cited as a precedent in the law-book!

Imagine. My Aitken appeal is cited for Section 5 offences
being alive and the only reason the Crown has offered to
disallow any appeal of that book-making decision is not it's
wrong but that it's not very important! Important enough to
set precedent in the latest law book but not important
enough to merit more than a cursory discussion? Wow. What a
find. But too late to include in my SCC papers served the
day before.

The Martins Criminal Code Annotations reads:
 
"The prohibition against marijuana possession is valid when
there is a constitutionally acceptable medical exemption
regulations in force. If, at the time of the accused's
charge, the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, SOR/2001-
227, were in force and constitutional, then S.4 is valid. If
the regulations did not solve the constitutional
deficiencies, then the possession prohibition, even as
modified by the regulations, are of no force and effect: R.
v. P.J. (2003) 177 C.C.C. (3d) 522, 14 C.R. (6th) 69, 231
D.L.R. (4th) 179 (Ont.C.A.) See. R. v. Stavert (2003) 179
CCC (3d) 117, 231 Nfld,& P.E.I.R. 211 (P.E.I.T.D.) holding
that it was open to the trial judge to conclude that there
was no constitutionally valid prohibition in effect for the
possession of marijuana given R. v. Parker, supra, and the
absence of constitutionally valid regulations at the time of
the offence. The declaration of invalidity in R. v. Parker
did not delete marijuana from Schedule II, but simply
declared that the reference in s.4 to Schedule II was of no
force or effect for the purpose of a possession charge: R.
v. Turmel (2003) 177 C.C.C. (3d) 533, 231 D.L.R. (4th) 190,
177 O.A.C. 312 (C.A.)

JCT: Though they do mention the Turmel application to
declare S.5 and all laws dead on Terry Parker Day, Martin's
Criminal Code of Canada doesn't mention Parker's application
to declare the S.4 law on Terry Parker Day. Instead, they
give the credit for declaring S.4 dead on Terry Parker Day
to R. v. J.P. in Windsor. There's earlier stuff on Parker
but I missed printing it and caught the important stuff. And
before I parse the Martin's Criminal Code of Canada for the
spin on Parker et al (Hitzig-Myrden-..../Turmel-Paquette,
after all, the Queen's printers print what David and Harvey
Frankel tell them, don't they?

Now, going over the Martin's mistakes under S.4 about the
Big Five Marijuana appeals, instead of:

"The prohibition against marijuana possession is valid when
there is a constitutionally acceptable medical exemption
regulations in force. If, at the time of the accused's
charge, the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, SOR/2001-
227, were in force and constitutional, then S.4 is valid. If
the regulations did not solve the constitutional
deficiencies, then the possession prohibition, even as
modified by the regulations, are of no force and effect: R.
v. P.J. (2003) 177 C.C.C. (3d) 522, 14 C.R. (6th) 69, 231
D.L.R. (4th) 179 (Ont.C.A.)

JCT: They could also write:

"If the regulations did not solve the constitutional
deficiencies, then the possession prohibition is of no force
and effect."

"If the regulations only solved the constitutional
deficiencies for less than 2 months, then is the possession
prohibition is of no force and effect again?"
 
"If the regulations stopped solving the constitutional
deficiencies, then the possession prohibition is of no force
and effect."

"If the regulations now cause access problems again, then
the possession prohibition is of no force and effect."

Finally, if Turmel wins appeal #30571 for the S.5(2) thought
crime, then the possession prohibitions (plural) "are" of no
force and effect.

Of course, Leave #30571 isn't your ordinary challenge to the
S.5(2) existence of the law, it's a challenge made while while
S.4(1) was dead. The purpose or spirit of the law, that the
substance was evil, no longer applied. Sure it looks bad to
have lots of something illegal but having lots of something
legal just means you like lots of something legal.

So I'm coming in on a unique challenge to S.5(2). I'm
raising whether the death of the law applied to all sections
or just to those who have won so far.

My challenge to S.5(2) was made while everyone admits
possession was legal. Seems it's important to a lot of
people whether the law was dead for all sections while we
know for sure the law was dead for S.4. A lot easier to
argue than people who have to argue it's dead while they
won't admit S.4 was dead, right? Every edge going my way
before betting against a life sentence to stop the new
legislation and screwing Frankel out of his escape from
justice.

My challenge is to a pure thought crime because Aitken
didn't know S.4 was later going to be declared dead. Right?
When Aitken ruled, no one but Turmel knew the law had become
invalid in 2001. No judge knew until they'd been told.
Actually, Rogin had already ruled in the J.P. decision in
Windsor that the law had died on Terry Parker day for a
reason that was later struck down. So the Crown dropped all
those charges because of the erroneous Rogin for nothing.
Except that the Turmel-Paquette and Parker cases had also
asked that Terry Parker Day be declared for the right
reason, because the MMAR had failed to work, not that it had
failed to be legislated properly, the technicality.

But still, the Doherty court and Martin's CCC gave the
credit for law being declared unknown to law to the J.P.
case who won the week before we did for the wrong reason! So
Martin's also didn't mention that the Terry Parker Day
demand had been made by Terry Parker himself first. Terry
should write to the Martins printers and tell them to check
the court orders, his was the same as mine and Paquette's,
and see that Parker asked for Parker day first, Parker
eventually won, Windsor's J.P. case asked second, lost, and
gets the credit in the Criminal Code. Disgusting what
Ministry of Justice Lawyers can do when they run the law-
book printing presses, isn't it?
 
"See. R. v. Stavert (2003) 179 CCC (3d) 117, 231 Nfld,&
P.E.I.R. 211 (P.E.I.T.D.) holding that it was open to the
trial judge to conclude that there was no constitutionally
valid prohibition in effect for the possession of marijuana
given R. v. Parker, supra, and the absence of
constitutionally valid regulations at the time of the
offence."

JCT: Of course, you can bet the Frankel's wanted Stavert's
Judge Matheson who accepts the law is resurrection without
Parliament to further the government spin. But every time
they say mention how prohibition turns off and on depending
on the absence or presence of a valid exemption, sure, it's
right there in the Code.

"The declaration of invalidity in R. v. Parker did not
delete marijuana from Schedule II, but simply declared that
the reference in s.4 to Schedule II was of no force or
effect for the purpose of a possession charge: R. v. Turmel
(2003) 177 C.C.C. (3d) 533, 231 D.L.R. (4th) 190, 177 O.A.C.
312 (C.A.)

JCT: The law died on Terry Parker Day Aug. 1 2001 but
nothing changed in the law books. It was just declared of no
force and effect. No need to change the law books. The bench
and bar would know which laws printed in the book were of no
force and effect and which laws in the book were.

Funny how Turmel cases make it into the Criminal Code of
Canada but not into the news! Of course, there's the
reference in the Criminal Code under Section 197, gaming
house definition of "gain."

And there used to be a reference to my Casino Turmel under
the Proceeds of Crime Section. Remember, when they did that
portion about me on TV, they showed all the boats and cars
and houses that were the kinds of things seized under
proceeds of crime and everyone thought it was my stuff. Har
har har har. Hence the rumors of my fabulous wealth to
finance my personal crusades in the minds of all viewers who
watched the TV news. Boy, they sure grabbed a million bucks
worth out of Turmel, everyone must have thought.

And the Crown wanted me jailed 10 years until I paid back
the Million I had won! But I won my case and got the Ottawa
Sun's quote of the week pointing out how I knew they weren't
going to let me keep it so I spent it all. They didn't call
it Project Robin Hood for nothing.

The next reference I had never even noted before where they
cite R. v. Turmel in Section 609, my special plea of
"autrefois acquit" in my Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel in
1993 after having been already acquitted of the same thing
in 1989.

So not only did Judge Wright make the Code convicting me of
the very same thing Judge Lennox had acquitted me of but
Wright made the Code when he ruled that the Proceeds of
Crime sections applies to recoup hidden proceeds but does
not apply to someone who has spent it all. But that
annotation seems to be gone. Are they now jailing guys who
spent it all until they pay it back like they wanted to jail
me until I had paid it back? Did they get their judge to
create new law again? Bad habit.
 
Remember, if they hadn't violated the law to stop me, I'd
have controlled the casino industry in Canada and I've
probably been robbed out of being Canada's Richest Pauper. I
had found a way of running U-Bank-too Blackjack and "No-
rake-off" poker legally, had been in public operation a year
and a half when the judges decided to change the meaning of
one word in the law.

I argued the rare "Autrefois acquit" because I was "already
acquitted" once before by Ontario Justice (now Chief) Brian
Lennox and all my found-ins acquitted by Ontario Justice
Fontana. Say, I've got to write to Brian about judges not
knowing about those tape recorders. The letter's ready to
go, just need his mailing address. He and I go back a long
way. You can find the transcript of my autrefois acquit
presentation and appeals at my home page, I think I was
recording pre-trial events too, and many gamblers have
already read this before but here's the Martin's CCC spin.

Under Section 609, Martins CCC Annotations read:
 
"A plea of "autrefois acquit" requires that the previous
verdict arise from the same condition on which it is later
purported to try the accused. Consequently, the plea of
autrefois acquit was not available where the accused had
been previously acquitted of keeping a common bawdy house in
relation to similar operations at other locations."
The ??? (photocopy blemish due to thick book) before the
judge on the previous trial was not the same as that before
the trial judge on the on this case because the matters
involved different factual transactions.

JCT: Same rules, different event.

"Multiple prosecutions under the same statutory provision
are permitted if each prosecution arises from a different
illegal act or from separate transactions."

JCT: I was busted and acquitted of how I played the game.
I was busted again because it was a new time. I could be
acquitted and could never point to why I was acquitted to
avoid being busted because it was a "different time" meant a
"different" offence. Crown Andre Marin won that one by
showing up with no case law, just a dictionary to point out
how the dictionary said "gain means win" so they could
expand the meaning of the word gain to include winnings that
used to be legal. Again, neatly sidestepping a House of
Parliament completely cuckolded of their prerogative to
engender penal initiatives. Finally, remember where it
reads:

"where the accused had been previously acquitted of keeping
a common bawdy house in relation to similar operations at
other locations..."

JCT: Har har har har. Keeping a common bawdy house is listed
under the same "disorderly house" section of the Criminal
Code with keeping a common gaming house but bawdy house is
for prostitution, not playing cards. The Criminal Code of
Canada have me down as the infamous "Triple-Pimp Turmel." 

--
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

  • TURMEL: Justice Doherty wont sign Resurrection Order
    ... A judgment includes all the reasons for the final ... Clay case with the "for medicine" Parker case but Parker ... Terry Parker II "unknown to law" declaration, Alan Young ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Armorial register puzzles:
    ... Please clarify whether the judge was speaking to the matter at hand or to ... not the Church and if the Church were to incorporate an individual into the ... The quoted passages of Canon Law are interesting ...
    (rec.heraldry)
  • TURMEL: #2 Johnson Quash hearing report
    ... COURT TRANSCRIPT from our tape recorder, ... both motions were filed on time as per Judge L.Serre. ... So Richard replied, can we proceed with the quash motion now ... the law was struck down, he let the crown prosecutors all ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Phyllis Schlafly: Quite a woman!
    ... I cannot believe that they were allowed to remain on the jury. ... That's my understanding of the respective functions of judge and jury. ... decided "matters of law". ... If you vote to convict a criminal defendant, ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Attorney Says Stephen Barrett Causes Harm, Pain and Anguish to Consumers
    ... the Judge must agree that there are no factual issues to go to ... > the case of a directed verdict, defined as "a jury verdict ordered by the ... *AS A MATTER OF LAW* there is no claim. ... However, the law says that these facts, ...
    (misc.health.alternative)