TURMEL: Gravel needs one last 8-line affidavit says Plouffe J.

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

Date: 4 Feb 2005 01:23:48 GMT

JCT: I don't know why but even though I had expected Dominic
Gravel to be passed through Provincial Court and then up to
Superior Court, and remembering that last time, they had
booked him for 9:15am instead of the regular 9:30 opening
time, I decided to play safe and show up half an hour early
at 9am.

Good move. Dominic was slated in Courtroom #1 at 9am before
Justice Jean Pierre Plouffe who ran Ray Turmel's marijuana
cultivation trial. Before it started, I heard the clerk say
it wasn't expected to last long and he'd then be transfered
over to #4 for a date. Sounds like they already had heard
what was going on.

There was no one else there when Dominic came out. Only me
and the bailiff, clerk, Crown Attorney, Judge.

So, Justice Plouffe, with me right in the front row taking
notes, explained to Dominic Gravel that he had both dossiers
in front of him, his recent application to quash in the
court below and his application now for varying the
conditions imposed by Judge Dagenais in denying him bail.

The told Dominic that theu motion in the court below was
fine and would be heard on Feb 24 as slated. But his motion
for release in Superior Court had a few problems. It wasn't
up to the Quebec Rules of Procedure.

He pointed out that such variances according to S.520 had to
fulfill certain conditions and there had to be an Affidavit
of Circumstances. What was your job? where do you live? what
will you do? where will you live? type of standard
questions.

He mentioned how they normally needed to have the
transcripts of the Dagenais decision and it had already been
ordered but had not yet arrived. This could be problematic
but may not be since we are not saying Judge Dagenais erred
but that something new, very important, has come up that no
one knew about. So there's no real criticism of Justice
Dagenais decision and no transcript of the decision no one
is objecting to would seem necessary.

And Rule 21 insisted that such application "shall" have the
Affidavit of the Appellant's circumstances. Keep in mind
that a judge can always dispense with any rule.

Justice Plouffe did tell Dominic to go ahead and bring the
motion for release back on 2 clear days notice once it's
done right by a lawyer.

But in case he wasn't going to use a lawyer, the judge was
going to explain everything that he would need to say step-
by-step in his affidavit! I started to take notes.

Notice that this is the way a judge should speak to a self-
represented defendant. The judge was his legal counsellor
and filled him in not only on what he had to do but on how
he had to do it. People may think this was Judge Plouffe's
chance to put a beating on "The John Turmel" which he's
entitled to do when I come in on a bare two red aces but it
was also his duty to the rights of the accused before him to
do the job he had no lawyer to do. He explained exactly what
Dominic had to do to have his claim heard. So, did the judge
treat his unrepresented accused properly. You bet he did.
Other judges who tell them "something's wrong and I'm not
going to tell you what and you're going to have to find out
yourself" are not doing that duty right. We had that happen
just recently when the judge wouldn't tell Richard Johnson
that it was the 30-day rule that needed to be fixed, which
we suspected and Richard even asked about. "Is it the 30-day
rule" that's Turmel's screw-up? He wouldn't tell him and
Richard only found out it was when the next motion with the
30 days notice got through. Even after Richard had asked,
his judge refused to indicate what the Turmel screw-up was
unlike Plouffe who not only explained what the Turmel's
screw-up was but how to fix it. You just don't see a judge
do this right very often but I'm thrilled to be able to
point at it as a great example of how a judge should care
for the unrepresented accused in his court.

He may have been giving me good advice but he kept putting
me down over and over for not having included the affidavit
that any competent attorney would have known about. Ouch.
Ouch. Ouch.

You have to understand, I got a call from Dominic on a
Sunday night. I don't have the Quebec Rules of Practice, I
race to get his papers in on the Monday based on the
injustice of pre-trial detention when the law could be
repealed as a special kind of abuse; that the mere chance of
such injustice should be enough to liberate the inmate. So
the usual "let me expose my soul to get out affidavit"
behind a good-behavior release should be laid not on the
victim of the abuse but on Crown David Frankel!!! A favorite
joke. So now I was paying for my error, over and over. As he
explained how to do it right, he made fun of the moron who
didn't do it right. I kept taking notes.

Finally, he noted the presence of Mr. John Turmel in the
court-room who was taking notes despite its being against
the rules, but he didn't mind he sighed, as it's expected
Turmel'd be bending the rules. I didn't know. First I'd
heard of it in 25 years of recording my cases in my
journals. So I stopped taking notes on what was necessary to
include in the affidavit that would be needed to have it
back before the court on 2 clear days notice. Later, I got
the form to order the tape! 20 cents a minute, 4 bucks for
the 20 minutes it took. Should be a real good tape. I hope
to order it, not the transcript, tomorrow. Isn't Quebec
grand?

Of course, that was nice of the judge to mention so many
times that Dominic can fix it and be back on 2 days notice.
Even if he kept putting the boots to me, I almost felt he
was daring me to get it back in minimum time. Especially
since he'd just told me everything I needed to do it right.

He even gave Dominic what I consider the ultimate good
advice! All my legal history, I've asked clerks and lawyers
for a model motion that I could copy. Nothing works better
than something that's worked right before. Judge Plouffe
told Dominic to get himself a model of the Affidavit of
Circumstance for varying bail refusal from some lawyer who
had done it right before and copy it.

Who needs a lawyer when you've got a judge like Plouffe?
Again and again, I've seen judges do their jobs right and
very few do it wrong, usually because of the novelty of the
situation. But you have to admit that this was one of the
finest examples of a judge taking good care of the
unrepresented accused before him I've ever seen. I wish
there was an award I could nominate him for. He was kicking
me in the sore spots every second sentence and I was in
bliss as he took tender care that his "client" found out
what was happening to him.

I almost got thrown out when Judge Plouffe mentioned how
he'd handled Ray's constitutional motions and was up on the
issues and that I hadn't done this constitutional challenge
right. I tried to sputter about Krieger making it different.
I felt the guards were on the way to grab me but he waved
them off. I guess he wanted to make sure I received his
instructions right. But then the first time Dominic got to
speak, he pointed out that his new Turmel reason was not the
same as the Old Turmel reason. Perfect answer.

Anyway, he got even with me for my presumptuousness. I guess
you'd to say that he was beratingly helpful. While putting
down my performance, he kept reassuring the kid that it
could be fixed and be back before him on "2 clear days
notice." Ouch but hooray in the same breath. I don't mind at
all. My gambling Prof used to call it the "*** on me"
principle. *** on me all you want but show us how to get
the kid justice. The reporters have no idea how useful the
judge was.

The judge did point out that Dominic could wait to make the
same motion to vary his bail conditions at his pre-trial in
the court below in March. Har har har. He can be back in
Superior Court on 2 clear days notice with a properly done
affidavit or he can wait to use his properly done affidavit
in March!!! Sure, it was an invitation to come back soon!

And he mentioned that the Motion to quash below was fine a
second time.

Dominic did ask if Turmel could explain as a friend of the
court. The judge could only hunch his head and say no.
Turmel can't be granted status as a friend of the courts.
Especially since I've beaten them up with their Kilo-
mistakes so many times.

I think that if the law proves dead by government cover-up,
then continued incarceration has to be construed as an
abuse. That's why I showed how the Krieger decision had been
hidden. What was there in the 8 lines that could be
necessary to delay his getting out on the chance the law is
dead?

I didn't have the list of things that needed to be included
in the affidavit and I had no access to the Rules of Quebec
Procedure to get the list of details needed for the
affidavit. I asked the clerk of the court if they had the
Rules handy, no, it was in the legal library for lawyers and
judges only. Not the registry. Then suddenly I ran into
Pierre Bourget who had represented me in my Hull "Operation
Blackjack" raid application release pending appeal in 1991.
He was good enough to come to the library to get me a copy
of Section 21 with the needed affidavit ingredients. It's
lucky to know so many people. So here's the only form that
Judge Plouffe insisted was necessary:

Rule 21 says applicant needs an affidavit that details: :
I, Dominic Gravel, swear as follows:
a) Date and place of arrest:
b) residences for the past 10 years
c) marital status
d) occupation at time of arrest
e) admit full criminal record
f) any pending criminal charges?
g) any passport?

So that's all that was missing in the Affidavit which is
already in the motion. But for those 8 lousy lines, Dominic
didn't get his hearing and the media are going to make a
monkey out of me for blowing it by 8 lines. Until I spring
him on Wednesday. He who laughs last laughs best.

Regis Bouchard had come in to catch the end of the show so
he wasn't aware that the only missing thing was the
Affidavit of Circumstance. Later I popped into his office
and I told him it was his first goof-up to say the after-
Ray-Turmel Krieger case was the same old Ray-Turmel stuff.
The CJRC reporter was there and he laughed and pointed out
that judge Plouffe had said I wasn't doing the kid's
constitutional motion at the right time. I said it wasn't a
constitutional motion, Parker's and Krieger's were. It was
not about badness but about non-constitutional repeal of the
law. I have no doubt Judge Plouffe's erroneous conclusion
that this challenge to the existence of the law was like Ray
Turmel's old constitutional one remain in the public
consciousness after tomorrow's Le Droit. Imagine getting it
wrong and not wanting to hear my side why. After all, the
judge didn't let me answer in court, Regis could have let me
make the answer outside.

I went back to court-room to see if I could catch Dominic
when he came in. The CJRC girl had a better nose for news
and invited me outside for an interview. Suddenly, four more
microphones are in my face, several TV cameras are rolling
and it's my chance to explain how Krieger killed the law.
Surprise. It was a scrum. Everybody was going to play it. So
I went back to get a copy of the kit so I could flash the
Supreme Court of Canada Krieger decision and other goodies.

CHOT's Genevieve Latulippe whined about my trying to get the
king-pin of a 6000 plant operation off the hook. I said
"wonderful. Glad to hear it was so big. (Thumbs up.) Glad to
know there are people out there cultivating this wonderful
plant.

But 6000 plants, she repeated? I pointed out cultivation
Section 7 was struck for all numbers. Appendix 2 where
Alberta struck down S.7 cultivation, Appendix 10 where the
Supreme Court of Canada agreed that S.7 was struck down and
then Appendix 5 where Crown Attorney's David Frankel
Memorandum's admitted knowing Martin Cauchon's Ministry of
Justice knew "S.7 has been declared of no force and effect
by the highest court of Alberta" and did not re-print the
Criminal Code to reflect the Parker or Krieger invalidations
of Section 4 and Section 7 of the CDSA.

It was struck down for all amounts, I didn't care how much.
My goal was to legalise this healthiest of herbal remedies
because I wanted to get them out to the farmers' markets
with their crops.

They had joked to me to keep it short and I quipped I'm a
master at keeping it short because it's easier for people to
understand. What gives them impression it takes a lot of
time is that they heard a lot in that little power-packed
time.

Then they did a scrum around Jacques Belley. I hope he
wasn't surprised. They asked him about being fired, he said
he was aware that his client had done some things on his own
but that he was only stepping back while the client did his
own thing and would be there when the case reached the
trial. I winked at him for getting it right.

They then asked him about John Turmel's involvement and he
started to say he didn't know anything about me, "except we
played Blackjack 25 years ago," I quipped, so he had to
explain how he wasn't going to participate in those things
his client could do even if he didn't think they had much
chance of success of over-ruling bail refusal on such a
large bust.

Before he left to see Dominic, I asked him to relay that the
affidavit could be ready for signing by this afternoon and I
would be ready to get him filed for next Tuesday.

I ran into Robert, the court translator, and when I asked
him about this "no taking notes" he said he hadn't heard
about it, it was something I should check out. Imagine,
people can't take notes in a court-room? But later, while in
#4 waiting to see if he'd be heard before noon, a guard came
over to tell me I wasn't allowed to take notes! What's going
on?

TVA Headline: John Turmel shown the court-room door in
Gravel case.

JCT: Sure, but only for 3 days. So Turmel's spectacular goof
cost my first Quebecker 3 extra days in jail. Big deal.
Won't it make him coming back at them in 3 days like Plouffe
invited him to, and which they didn't report, be a surprise.
File Friday 2 clear days later is Wednesday. Bouncing back
from their media laugh-in to the question of merit and won't
they be surprised when the courts open their Criminal Code
dealing with his S.5(2) charge and run into R. v. Turmel.

Latulippe reported Turmel's "Sa bataille n'a pas fait long
feu." Turmel's fight didn't burn long.

They played Belley saying it was premature to be filing
constitutional motions which had to be done at the trial.

So the spin is that stupid Turmel didn't know that
constitutional motions had to wait for the trial.

Then they finished that his experience today has made him
ditch Turmel and retain his lawyer.

Surely this can't mean he doesn't want to file the 8 lines
and try to get out on Wednesday? He was heard today without
his lawyer while his lawyer was on the file, he can be heard
on Wednesday too without his lawyer while his lawyer is on
the file except he has to file the form to bring him from
jail to the court himself. Last week's lesson.

Anyway, I'm going to prepare his affidavit with new notice
of return of motion where he can fill out 2 clear days
notice and be heard and then leave a copy with Belley, his
girl-friend, by fax to the jail, and by mail.

It would be so sad to think his confidence has been so
shattered in "free with nothing to lose" Turmel that he'll
prefer to stay in jail and than try another "free with
nothing to lose " Turmel motion with the extra 8 right
lines.

Anyway, it's still early so you can catch CBC French and
TVA. CHOT lead off the news with my flame-out. Bet I'll get
Dominic to file the last 8 lines and be back soon. 

--
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