TURMEL: Judge Serre dismisses Johnson Krieger Quash

From: John Turmel (bc726_at_FreeNet.Carleton.CA)
Date: 02/04/05 

Date: 4 Feb 2005 01:19:48 GMT

JCT: Here is as much of the report of the Johnson hearing
before Judge Serre as I have been able to put together.

>Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 00:25:14 +0000
>From: el_sunset_warrior@yahoo.ca (el_sunset_warrior)
>Subject: Re: we weren't prepared for door no.3
>To: medpot-preview@yahoogroups.com

sorry virgil all i can say at this point is that i was
running on less than 6 hours sleep out of the last 72 hours
prior to going to court, i was pretty brain dead before the
judge and heavily relied on the tape recording,
unfortunately the tape recording has a very high static
interference, possibly because of the computer between me
and the judge. im trying to figure out a way to eliminate
the static in order to hear the judge.

going to the high school tomorrow and talk to the audio
visual teacher there, ive heard they have some impressive
equipment there.

all i can tell you about the ruling is she talked for about
30 or 40 minutes pretty well straight with very little
interruption. it was all very technical, quoting all the
major players that ive used in my motion, i believe she said
she is bound by hitzig on sec 4(1) and possibly sec[5[2.

she took my motion and turned it into two, striking down the
first part and allowing me to continue on for trial using
the second part.

the confusing thing is we're all not exactly sure which part
is which? again i appoligise for being brain dead at the
time, couldn't help it. part of my medical condition.

now if ive got any of this straight it may be that she is
going to allow me to argue that 1) I can still fight for sec
7 cultivation or 2) that the law is un-constitutional again
based on health canada putting back in the cancers to mmar.

i really need to hear whats on that tape in order to fill in
all the gaps that i cannot remember but i know is all filed
in my brain i need recording to help coax out memories.

final result

the clerk read out an election of choices such as superior
court with judge for jury, appeals court judge and jury and
a whole lot of other choices but the only smart choice for
me, i elected to have any further hearings right hear in
elliot lake as i feel the judge serre is on my side, and
seeing all the problems everyone else is having at all
levels of court i thought this was in my familys best
interest.

judge serre was concerned wheather she had jurisdiction

crown aube assured her that she did.

i also made mention to john in ottawa today and quebec
tomorrow and if all goes well i may not have to come for
trial.

judge remanded until mar 8 i think.
until i hear whats on the tape this is pretty well it try my
best to decipher or possibly buy transcripts. richard 

---
>Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 16:36:45 -0800
>From: muirhead@haidagwaii.net (Michael)
>Subject: Re: Re: we weren't prepared for door no.3
>To: medpot-preview@yahoogroups.com
 
You've done what you could, Richard - and under the 
circumstances, I have the impression that your having done 
anything at all is a bit of a blessing. :-)
 
I'm almost certain that you're being offered the chance to 
argue the death of Sec 7(1)... because there's documentation 
start to finish that it really is dead. The 4(1) thing is a 
major nuisance, because until Serre can be forced to accept 
that the Hitzig ruling is nothing but opinion, she's bound 
by the CA in her own province more than by any other court 
but the SCC. What Serre thinks about the reinstated 
unconstitutional conditions in the MMAR is anyone's guess.
JCT: That's why it's so important to do it in another 
province. 
 
I'm crossing my fingers and toes that you can sort out that 
tape. Barring that, however, I think I'll be ordering some 
transcripts.  :-) ((U))   M
---
 
>Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 00:45:32 +0000
>From: el_sunset_warrior@yahoo.ca (el_sunset_warrior)
>Subject: [medpot-preview] ALSO
sorry i forgot to mention about the rev. tarzan. while 
waiting out in the car before court started. a court 
official came out and handed me what we thought were the 
north bay transcripts. it appears only to be copies of the 
rev's 3 applications he submitted in court. no recorded 
dialogue of actual proceding. we have just purchased a new 
printer, when i figure out how to scan i will post here at 
preview, it may help, 
tarzan writes like tarzan, i cant make out parts of his 
submissions. 
regardless the judge said there was nothing here to help me 
with. richard
---
 
>Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 01:13:20 +0000
>From: el_sunset_warrior@yahoo.ca (el_sunset_warrior)
>Subject: ALAS, BUT ANOTHER PROBLEM PLEASE ADVISE
>To: medpot-preview@yahoogroups.com
in regards to my daughter the minor who was charged with all 
the same charges as mommy and daddy.     
the crown request the judge to move on my daughters charges 
in young offenders court, up until now everyone concerned, 
the judge, mr. aube the crown, and my self have agreed to 
include my daughter as a tag-a-long until judge renders 
decision on mom and dads charges.    
i believe the judge told me i should get legal counsel for 
my daughter and have him return with us on mar 8 or would my 
daughter want to keep me as legal counsel and has she had a 
screening form done, i dont know iam not a lawyer. i think 
they are wanting to try my daughter before a decision is 
rendered on mom and dad.    
if the judge is only dismissing half of my motion and at 
this time my daughter was included as a tag-a-long then must 
she not be included until its very end? thank- you for any 
input. richard 
---
 
>Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 20:45:08 -0500 (EST)
>From: budweedluv@yahoo.ca ("Bud E. Luv")
>Subject: Re: [medpot-preview] ALSO
 
Sorry to hear that Judge Serre ignored the orders from the 
Appeal Courts (Alberta & Ontario).  
I hope that she digs into the matter further because the 
endorsed decisions in Tarzans cases may not be relevant, but 
the oral decision rendered certainly is.
 
The Judge spoke correctly when she said that the endorsed 
written decision is not relevant. It is the ORAL DECISION 
RENDERED THAT IS CRITICAL!
 
In the decision given orally, Judge Valin acknowledged that 
s.4 & s.7 had been declared to be of no force and effect.
As the Rev was not up on any of those charges and only 
s.5(2), there was nothing binding which obligated the Court 
to quash the charge before him.
I left 3 detailed messages over the past 2 weeks requesting 
the transcripts from the 7 (seven) motions heard and 
adjudicated upon that day. I only received a call back today 
in response to my messages. The only reason she did call is 
because I went to the manager in the Sudbury district who 
sent an e-mail on my behalf to a Manager in North Bay.
 
She will be getting back to me in regards to an approximate 
cost. At $3.20 a page, it's not going to be cheap. But, if I 
can manage to locate the funds for them, I will most 
certainly pick them up. Fortunately, if another party has 
already ordered the transcripts, the cost goes down to 
approximately $0.55. If the Crown or the Courts have already 
ordered them as you have stated, I might be lucky enough to 
get the entire proceedings that conclusively shows that 
Judge did acknowledge that s.4 & s.7 had been struck down. 
Peace
---
 
>Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 21:07:25 -0500 (EST)
>From: budweedluv@yahoo.ca ("Bud E. Luv")
>Subject: Re: ALAS, BUT ANOTHER PROBLEM PLEASE ADVISE
>To: medpot-preview@yahoogroups.com
 
As far as I know, (others can confirm), the screening form 
is the "official notice" that you have been charged with an 
offense.
  
You and your wife should already have received one along 
with disclosure by the Crown (if you have requested 
disclosure).
 
It basically states your name, charge(s), how the Crown is 
to proceed...(ie. indictment, summary conviction) and what 
they are asking...(ie. custody, fine, probation, diversion).
 
With the choice you made today, I believe you may have 
skipped your option to a preliminary hearing (where you get 
to cross-examine officers on their will state (disclosure of 
police) and information to obtain (if the information to 
obtain the search warrant has not been sealed....usually is 
if an informant is involved). Any relief you could have been 
granted at pre-trial (however limited), will now have to be 
heard by the Trial Judge as they are taken with any Pre-
Trial motions once they have been assigned to a particular 
case.
 
As you have chosen the manner and court jurisdiction you 
wish to be tried in (Provincial Court before Judge Serre), 
you are well on your way to a trial. The March 8th 
appearance might be for a Pre-Trial. Can you confirm?
JCT: Unless they file an application to prohibit in which 
case there's no trial for a real real long time. 
In regards to your daughter, I would think that the appeal 
you are going to pursue would put that issue at rest.  If 
any appeal is pending, the trial is put on hold until the 
appeal is resolved. Would need a little more info to offer 
more. Hope this helps. Peace
---
 
>Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 04:31:21 +0000
>From: el_sunset_warrior@yahoo.ca (el_sunset_warrior)
>Subject: [medpot-preview] Re: ALSO
> She will be getting back to me in regards to an 
approximate cost.
i can absorb the cost if the actual transcripts does indeed 
show the oral submission from the judge concerning sec 7 and 
4.     
also i was talking to pierre drouin earlier and he is trying 
to get in court shortly, he has suggested to me that he will 
ask the judge for my court transcripts as part of my motion 
still has to be ruled on.  
by making this request we are hoping to save on the court 
cost with pierre also receiving copys at hopefully no cost 
just like i made request and got free partial transcripts 
from tarzan's case. does this sound like it may work?     
any ideas how long it takes court to make transcripts in 
case i decide to buy them?  richard
---
 
>Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 23:02:00 -0800
>From: wworld@island.net (Evers)
>Subject: Re: Re: ALAS, BUT ANOTHER PROBLEM PLEASE ADVISE
>To: medpot-preview@yahoogroups.com
 
Richard - I am thinking that you didn't point out the 
constitution itself to the court.  (Read here Section 52).  
You also may want to use Chen's decision on Bobbie Jo Parks 
(I can get it for you) - it is in a BC Court (Provincial), 
but has all the arguments, in that the government hasn't 
legislated new law.  (Also the Masse case).
JCT: Chen decision on the "too muddled" argument was on the 
day before the Hitzig-Myrden resurrection.  
In the case of your daughter, minors here are entitled to 
legal aid.  That MAY be the case with your daughter, if so, 
it appears that the judge is giving you the opportunity to 
have HER get the lawyer and present the case - thereby 
getting thru all the legalese.  (Although I would make sure 
the lawyer understands it fully and is willing to present 
it, and ONLY THEN, would I use the lawyer).
 
As I said before, and John just laughed at - the judge can 
only go by existing cases presented to her.  Although you 
did present Krieger, EDWARDS ruled "the case" out because of 
the Hitzig reasoning, so you need to prove that Consitution 
kicks *** over anything (so there is no law) and that 
interpretation act translates the constitution into "the 
CDSA never existed". You may also need the MMAR itself (not 
the AIDS point) - 3 Dec 2003 - where the MMAR states they 
are not following the Ontario court ruling, and because of 
that, unconstitutional anyways.
 
(You may also need to point out (as I have) that in Krieger 
the judge is NOT asking for the govt to supply, so it is 
different from Hitzig).
JCT: It's in the Costigan ruling. Paragraph 6. 
 
I would also present the Constitution.  - pointing out sec 
52 and 32  AND the Interpretation Act Sec 2 (which says when 
laws are valid).
 
After this, I am seriously thinking about subpoenaing my MP 
(John Duncan) to come to court on 17 Mar, to inform the 
judge who MAKES law (the legislature).  I will be going to 
his office tomorrow to speak to his agents about this.  He 
is a conservative/reform - heavy on the R, and anti-pot - 
BUT - he has also just sent around a little flyer that says 
govt makes law and courts uphold them.  He is supposed to be 
at the conservative convention on the 17 Mar, but if unless 
Crown acceeds to my demand that only parliament makes law, I 
am going to make him tell it to the judge.  I suggest you do 
something of the same.
 
As I said before - when you go before a judge - and I have 
never been to court myself - but for all I understand of it 
from what I have read, is the EVIDENCE needs to be there.
 
You may also wish to adjourn your trial date to well after 
17 March, so I can present mine.  It is a different 
province, but Crown did not appeal Parks or Masse - which 
both say CDSA 4.1 is GONE.  (Although Crown says they won't 
acknowledge it till it goes to an appeal or Supreme Court).
Hope it helps. Noreen
JCT: The point is that the judge didn't accept Krieger and 
if she used the Hitzig Nuremberg defence, the next step is 
the same as the Nielsens. Prohibition to a higher judge who 
may prove high enough to not be bound to "follow the Doherty 
Order." 
When the transcript comes through, we'll publish but all we 
really need to know is that she didn't quash. 
Time for Step 2 before even talking about letting the 
daughter get close to a criminal record. 
--
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