TURMEL: Gravel Krieger Release Round 4; Round 5 Tuesday

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

Date: 3 Mar 2005 12:41:04 GMT

JCT: So you already heard about Dominic's "Order sought"
being on the Notice of Motion page instead of at the end of
the Application page. Turmel lost Gravel Round #3 on another
technicality. Whew, what a close call. But he was booked
back in minimal time.

So not only did I move the Order sought from the Notice page
to the Application page but I now upgraded the grounds.

What used to be the usual Magic 27 words:

TAKE NOTICE that on Monday Feb 24 2005, the Applicant will
make a motion before a judge of the Superior Court of Quebec
at the courthouse at 17 Laurier in Gatineau at 9:30am for an
Order varying the bail conditions to permit release upon
Applicant's own recognizance on the grounds that "Parliament
has not re-enacted the necessary S.4 possession and S.7
cultivation prohibitions sustaining any imputed improper
purpose since they were struck down in Parker and Krieger"

JCT: Is now, for the purposes of release, not quashing:

21. If the repeal of the Section 7 cultivation prohibition
by the Alberta Court of Appeal in Krieger which was
sustained by the Supreme Court of Canada #29569 has a chance
of being sustained by This Honorable Court, then continued
incarceration would constitute an abuse of the court's
process.
22. Since the Krieger decision was not raised below, there
is no need for the transcripts of the Order of court below
since no error is alleged on the part of Judge Dagenais and
only new information is being relied upon as grounds for
this motion.
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT TO:
1) ORDER that the transcripts of the court below be
dispensed with; and to
2) ORDER that the bail conditions be varied to permit the
Applicant's release on his own recognizance upon the grounds
that continued incarceration awaiting prosecution under a
statute that may have already been repealed would be an
abuse of the court process.
Dated at Gatineau on Feb 23 2005
Defendant-Applicant Dominic Gravel

                      NOTICE OF MOTION

To: Attorney General for Canada

TAKE NOTICE that on Tuesday March 2 2005, the Applicant will
make a motion before a judge of the Superior Court of Quebec
at the courthouse at 17 Laurier in Gatineau at 9:30am in
courtroom #2 for an Order varying the bail conditions to
permit release upon Applicant's own recognizance on the
grounds that continued incarceration awaiting prosecution
under a statute that may have already been repealed would be
an abuse of the court process.

AND FOR AN ORDER dispensing with the transcripts of the
Order of court below since no error is alleged;

JCT: Okay, so I repeated it in the Notice of Motion a la
Ontario rules. I've done so many Quebec motions that I had
no excuse for misplacing the Order sought.

Getting him to sign everything wasn't a problem this time.
There's a section in the penal regulations that permits the
warden to authorize a non-family member to visit an inmate.
So Dominic asked that I be allowed to visit him and it was
granted. So I had booked an appointment for 2:30 last
Wednesday to show him how I switched the paragraphs in the
application, and got him to sign the new motion and file it
for Tuesday.

Finally, if it would be an abuse of process to keep him in
jail if Krieger applies, it shouldn't be necessary to
discuss all of the affidavit information insisted upon for
use by people not released on their own recognizance.
Dominic's going to have to ask to deal with his motion on
Krieger first before getting into the cross-examination of
his release affidavit by the Crown. Why even bother talking
about the affidavit and conditions of release unless he is
going to be getting out due to Krieger?

I did decide to try something new. Just like Ontario had a
mechanism to transmit Mike South's documents from the inmate
to the court, so too, I'd bet Quebec has a similar process.
So, seeing as I was going to get to see him live, I brought
along enough copies so he could serve the jailer a couple
and see what happens. If it gets to court on Tuesday, great,
if not, we'll hand up the improved copies.

The jailers said they could not process Dominic's documents
to the court for him. He would have to do it himself! Next,
we tried to serve the documents on the Crown's office in the
usual way and twice before for Dominic. But the secretary
who automatically signs the service copy was not there,
Crown Attorney Martin Cote was. He said they would not
accept service since it had to be served by the inmate or a
bailiff, not a friend.

"No problem," I told Dominic later. "Nothing much has
changed so you just hand it up to the judge on Tuesday."
Which he evidently did before court. There may be a way, by
filing an Appearance form and asking a judge to authorize
bringing him to court to personally serve and file his
papers. I'll check. If it takes an appearance before a judge
to bring him to personally file his paperwork because
friends can't help, he has as much free time as the judge
has.

I told Dominic that the only way he could keep the right
attitude about what has been illegally done to him if the
Krieger decision rules is to keep repeating: Do I have a
civil suit against Frankel for the 7 months in jail under a
statute he admits is dead? Har har har har.

That's the reason he's seeking to get out on his own
recognizance. Keeping him constitutes an abuse if the law is
dead. And there's a pretty good chance it's dead. So there's
a pretty good chance the judge is permitting an abuse if he
doesn't let him out. So why tie him down with conditions?

And of course, why speak of conditions to be let out if
there's no chance of being let out. He's going from $125,000
bail requested to no conditions. It takes something pretty
spectacular to change the circumstances from $125,000 bond
to no conditions. That's the magnitude of the story. By
going for no conditions, after their demand for $125,000, it
promises something pretty explosive.

So is the Krieger decision explosive under Section 7 of the
CDSA that for some reason has not been removed from the
Criminal Code of Canada? Is the Krieger decision that
explosive as claimed? Is the Krieger decision that
spectacular?

And no matter what happens from the Provincial, Superior,
Appellate, to my Supremes, I've got one last final
spectacular explosive move left up my sleeve. Okay, two.
Maybe more will arise.

But you have to admit that asking for no conditions instead
of $125,000 certainly begs the question. Is the same old
losing Turmel stuff capable of winning this? (for those
media who don't mention the Krieger ruling upon which
Gravel's case is built). Or is this really some spectacular
new Krieger stuff that's capable of winning? (for those who
do mention Krieger).

And let's never forget the Parker Ace of Hearts in the hand.
Parker's Appeal Court struck down Section 4 as
unconstitutional and Judge Acton struck down Section 7 6
months later using the Parker court's reasoning.,

Parker Sheppard: Heart Queen
Rosenberg, Catzman, Charron: Heart King
No Crown appeal: Heart Ace.

Krieger Acton: Diamond Queen
Costigan, Wittman, LoVecchio: Diamond King
McLachlin, Major, Fish: Diamond Ace.

Turmel Jokered Parliament into not re-enacting S.4 & S.7.

Hitzig Lederman: Spade Queen (Resurrection chance)
Doherty, Goudge, Simmons: Spade King (Resurrection)
Turmel appealing for the Spade Ace (stinking corpse is dead)

Turmel Aitken: Club Queen (spirit & letter of law)
Doherty, Goudge, Simmons, Club King (do not apply)
Turmel appealing for the Club Ace (other sections are
corpses too).

What an incredible game.

But weird stuff happened in Round 4 on Tuesday before Judge
Bedard again. Boy, did not letting Dominic Gravel consult
with his coach cost HMTCs (Her Majesty The Clerk)s a lot of
grief today.

Originally, when I got there, I was told by one clerk in the
registry that Gravel had been slated for the 3pm hearing
before an out-of-town judge. But before leaving, I decided
to check with the clerk in the court. She didn't know and
went and checked with Justice Bedard. He said that he was
free and would deal with it. And so it's heard in courtroom
#2 at 9:30am. First.

After the Crown had explained to the judge (and a good crowd
of people awaiting other cases) how it was Martin Cote's
bright idea to refuse to accept the inmate's amended motion
because he didn't serve it personally and a friend can't do
it, I got the feeling even the judge felt like puking at the
impediments they were putting in the way of a guy in jail.
Reminds me of http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/pombible.htm

COURTS OF JUSTICE
With slavery or death for those who failed in their reports,
It's obvious why Jesus told them to avoid the courts.
Luke 12, verse 57, warns the debtor of the trap,
"You settle with him out of court or you will do the rap.
The magistrate will turn you over to the jailers who,
Will keep you chained until you've paid the last penny due."
The problem is how long it takes for one who is in jail,
To earn the money necessary to fulfill his bail?

JCT: How is an inmate supposed to serve it on the Crown when
he's in jail? Of course, they think they're fighting with me
and forget they're really fighting with the victim. So
inmates have to get a bailiff to do it?

Remember how Mike South handed his Notice of Appeal to the
Ontario jailer and it was the superintendent's duty to
transmit it to the court of appeal? Seems prisoners in
Quebec don't have access to such forms nor will the
superintendent transmit it along. Is this equal treatment
under the law? I called the Quebec Court of Appeal registry
trying to find out whose responsibility it is to liaise
between the court and prisoners who have no lawyers and they
didn't know.

But Judge Bedard mentioned that he had received the amended
motion and had already read it. He said that it was just an
extra page with the required conclusions sought and so we
would proceed. The only way he could have gotten it was for
Dominic to have handed it in when he got to court somehow.

But the next hang-up shouldn't have really happened. The
judge mentioned that there were several grounds being raised
here, that the law is no longer of force and effect
(YeeHaa), the courts should go easier on growers, and
whatever you have against Judge Dagenais' decision. "Do you
have anything you object to in Dagenais?" Here, Dominic
should have said no, since I'm asking to dispense with it.

But he said yes. But only in the sense that his appendix 13
had the Journal de Montreal news article where the Quebec
Court of Appeal told judges to go easy on pot growers
sentences. He didn't mean he objected to anything that
Dagenais knew about, only the final decision after the new
information had come out!

So now the judge was stuck. Crown Genevieve Depassillie (?)
explained that Justice Isabelle had ordered transcripts but
she didn't know where they were. So the judge adjourned so
they could go find out.

Just before the judge left, Dominic asked if he have a few
minutes to consult with his counsellor John Turmel.
Unfortunately, no, Mr. Turmel isn't a lawyer and communicate
with him. I'd have told him to point out the motion to chuck
the transcripts altogether.

When the judge came back, he had to apologize to Dominic for
the court registry. It seemed that not only was the
transcript not ready, it hadn't even been ordered yet. A
foul-up in the registry.

Again, the judge laid it out for him that he could proceed
if he didn't object to anything in the Dagenais decision.
But if there were objections, he would then have to read the
Dagenais transcript. So what's to be done about it? I'm
screaming inside, "dispense, dispense," but the judge and
Dominic were on different wavelengths: The judge was talking
about reasons while Dominic was objecting to the Dagenais
decision itself.

Still, if Dominic had been told to simply say "I have
nothing to add to what has been written" the judge would
have had to sign off on the motion to dispense with the
transcript first thing. He would have done that and then
moved on to the Krieger Kick-Ass Kontest.

Didn't he notice the motion to dispense with the transcripts
that were causing all the problems? I don't see why the
judge couldn't have just granted the Order dispensing with
the transcripts and then forged ahead. I mentioned it twice.

At least I was cheered by the several times the judge
mentioned Gravel's grounds of the law being of no force and
effect. At one point, the Crown cited the words we used in
English that the section "is repealed" (English) and gave us
her definition in French. So Section 7 being repealed is
definitely one of the grounds being discussed!

But the judge was now stuck with having to order a
transcript that I'll still be trying to dispense with.

He tried giving Dominic two choices. How about if they get
you the tape of the Dagenais hearing and provide the
facilities at the jail for you to listen to them and we
could come back here Friday. And of course, Dominic's leery
until he hears what's behind Door #2.

Or I'll order them to have the transcript ready by this
Friday and we all come back next Tuesday. Dominic said he
didn't mind waiting for the transcripts on Friday and be
back next Tuesday, maybe not realizing how much more work
transcripts were than copies of tapes.

Oops, the lady Crown has a problem. Her investigator who
checked out Dominic's Affidavit of employment offer, marital
status, etc, couldn't come next Tuesday. He was in on
something important and he couldn't make it before next
Friday.

"Totally unacceptable" said the judge. She begged for an ex
parte hearing to explain why they should wait until Friday
and when they came back, the judge ruled he didn't think her
reasons were good enough. So he was ordering the motion to
be returned next Tuesday March 8 after transcripts are
delivered by Friday March 4. The officer stormed off mad.
Hey, what did they expect? Chasing gardeners takes away from
their time chasing the real crooks. If he's off chasing even
more gardeners, them I'm glad to be of impediment.
 
The judge also indicated that he thought that the Federal
Crown had an interest in cases where the constitutional
validity of the Criminal Code is concerned and should be
served. With the usual admonitions about getting a lawyer,
he noted that it's evident Mr. Gravel was choosing to be
self-represented and he has that right. He told Dominic to
refile with the Federal Crowns added in the Style of cause.

This sounds like both the Crown and Turmel fouled up. Them
on their transcript and me on not serving the federal Crown.
Well, this is not a constitutional challenge and I don't
have to serve it in these cases and I will not refile.

Especially now that they have put more impediments in his
way of serving and filing his papers. So here I take a
stand. If the court does rule I had to serve the feds too,
then we'll be back for Round 6.

I dare say I know more about this stuff than most judges do
and this as one of the greatest confusions going on. I know
we're not here to discuss with the Feds whether their law is
constitutionally bad, Parker and Krieger already won that
ruling. We're here to discuss with the provincials whether
it's non-constitutionally dead. Something new.

And though I was tempted to comply and re-file new paper and
add the feds to the service list, which they would probably
ignore, when I considered how they had just made it harder
for us to jump through the service hoop, and I would have to
do the jumping through their hoop, I finally decided make my
stand. How is Dominic supposed to overcome the Crown's
barriers without any outside help? They've made service too
hard just after I'd gotten his papers done it right!! I
didn't participate in the foul-up and I'm not going to
correct what I did not do wrong.

So the papers are set, ready to go.

Quite a lot of media were there for another case. They may
have seen the Crown get beaten up by in inmate and his
silent coach and see the court bureaucracy forced to spend
its assets on a transcript that was asked to be dispensed
with. How sad.

One of my all-time favorite tactics has always been to offer
written representations. In the Nielsen case, twice. TO TRIO
case too. There's really nothing a Crown can do to object to
going in with our arguments in writing.

So I'm going to put together everything into one answer, no
more screw ups. The judge stated the right challenge even if
he mislabelled the arena.

Then I'll translate it into French, and have it ready to be
read into the record on Tuesday morning! No more delays.

I can see them lighting a fire under some stenographer's
feet on this one. We'll see. Or maybe them screwing up again
on the transcript can be given credit for causing his
release instead of Krieger?

Anyway, that's Round 4 of the Gravel Saga. The delay was
completely the Crown's fault this time and nothing is going
to stop it going forward next Tuesday March 08 except maybe
a ruling that this non-constitutional issue needs
constitutional notice to the feds. But I doubt that's going
to happen once it's pointed out in his Written
Representations.

Round 5 on Tuesday March 08 2005. 

--
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