bc726

JCT: Just 3 full days left to go before the Lederman
decision that condemns the MMAR as non-compliant with the
Parker decision for having failed to enable supply of
marijuana takes effect, the tension is palpable. Seems
everyone is waiting with bated breath to see what Health
Minister Anne McLellan is going to do. Exquisite tension:

DR: you are right about the addictiveness of reading your
post john lol.

JCT: I never know what I'm going to come up with and after a
report is gone, I often re-read it and end up splitting my
sides: Any pictures of the peak of Alan Young's teaching
career? Forever etched in my mind? And yours? With his
dildo? But the real addiction is that in the back of your
mind, you realize that your neck is in the same noose too!
What they're trying to pull off is going to hurt you and
your family and you know it. This is real politics with your
fate in the balance too.

DR: Since i got my prescription and started following the
med pot stuff on the net, mostly at cmma but now here
instead, i very very rarely watch anything on TV.

JCT: A bunch of articles to the Canadian Medical Marijauna
Association didn't make it through their censor so you never
even got the whole story till you switched to the no-
censorship medpot groups.

DR: I am too busy logging on several times a day to see what
has been said. It drives my wife up the wall.

JCT: Consider the consequences if Parker loses on your life?
He doesn't get his Pitt decision back. The Lederman decision
validates the MMAR. They ignore the delay and dismiss Kid
Windsor's technicality on the principle of fundamental
justice that Canada's children have to be protected from
illicit drugs. And boy, is everyone back in hot water.

With the new regs making your medicine that much more
dangerous to produce and that much more expensive to obtain,
it's the flip side of total freedom we almost achieved with
Lederman in our hand condemning the MMAR with Rogin and
hopefully Pitt. I can't imagine anything more important to
any medpot person in Canada than whether Health Minister
Anne McLellan shows some compassion and authorizes
distribution of the Manitoba supply to Canada's sick. If she
doesn't, then we're all free for real. If she does, we're
all in trouble together. Anyone want to bet she disappoints
us by being compassionate?

DR: Will you and Terry be at the july9 protest? It would be
great to shake yours and Terry's hands and personally thank
you for fighting for EVERYONE"S freedom. I'd love to get a
picture of us all blazin one for my growroom wall.
Getting high with THE Terry Parker who killed prohibition
would be like jammin with Ace Frehley, or Joe Satriani. I
got some cool pictures i took i'd like to show Terry of my
growroom with a big article about him on the wall behind the
plants lol

JCT: We'll be in Toronto Monday-Thursday. I have to file all
our papers on Monday for a hearing on Thursday July 10 to
take care of all paperwork details. And we'll be in TO in
case the Court of Appeal does agree to hear the Government's
last-ditch emergency plea to save Canada's children from
dangerous drugs by staying the Lederman decision
condemnation of the MMAR.


MP: Hi Anne & Ron: Please note that the Group Settings at
both medusers and ccc groups DOES NOT permit it's members to
share it's archives with other groups. Medpot-discuss DOES
permit it's members to share the group's archives. Marc

JCT: I'm banned from both those groups but all my medpot and
medpot-discuss archives are open and all opinions are
tolerated. I don't even care if they swear. Here, everything
is out in the open. There, they shun the light. Where do you
think will arise more vigorous debate? Not where they shun
the light.

JCT: You certainly do cheer me up. A few select quotes:

DR: Leave the insulting to those who do it well like John C
Turmel. He at leasts taunts people who are worth taunting.
Don't you see how he is posting the countdown to lederman in
his posts titles. Taunting the crown making them sweat? I am
all for this type of taunting that brings up real issues and
draws out the opponent...
I have said before that i agree with john that the hitzig-
renda issue should never have been raised because Parker had
the crown by the balls and would have freed all of us in
time. That does not however mean that i think marco was
trying to hurt the movement only that i believe that he made
a mistake.

JCT: Of course they would want an innocent to be the patsy
to take the blame. I have no doubt that Marco could be the
patsy. But even if he had not been there, Young and crew
would have found some other contributor to foot the bill.

It's just that not only has Marco's involvement possibly
helped the Lederman decision impede Parker's breakaway, his
sudden desire to save the world's medpotters smells wrong.
Yesterday's rant bothers me:

MR: What would you like me to tell you
what I am up to
NO ****ING WAY

JCT: "would you like me to tell you what am I up to?" he
asks. "No way," he answers. I guess Marco can keep secret
what's he's up to but at least I'm satisfactorily
forewarned. Still, someday, what Marco was up to will come
out and we'll all know the real truth. Marco, mole or moron?
Remember, trip me up once, they don't often play near me in
the front lines again.

DR: I even think ed is genuinely wanting to help marc even
tho i believe he is wrong to get in Turmel-Parker's way by
putting doubt in marc's mind and trying to stop the Turmel
juggernaut that has achieved more in a couple of years than
lawyers have ever accomplished.

JCT: You know what's said about one engineer with initiative
versus a million lawyers amongst whom they've sown discord.
Hey, isn't Parliament full of lawyers too? Search for the
joke about the Engineer in Hell. Well, I'm going to do the
same and fix this Hell and turn it into the Heaven I want to
live in.

Sure it may seem a four-gun juggernaut but I think of it
more as Mr. Spock getting in the control room to upgrade the
malfunctioning program in the computer. And they can always
rule "they fail to see my reasoning" and permit the Lederman
decision to validate the MMAR and resurrect the CDSA. Ugh.
But I've got the Internet Court of Public Opinion on my
side.

Don't know what the Government expect out of their new stay
application. Should hear from the court Monday morning when
we go in to file our motions. But we'd have to re-argue that
making Marc and Terry wait stay the application of Charter
section 7, and s. 52 of the Constitution Act 1982, and
permit an ongoing deprivation of the rights of the
appellants.

I know Ed keeps claiming that he was first to think that
delaying everyone's remedy is wrong but it's something that
every armchair quarterback would think of. Can't Burstein
have thought of the right move on his own without having to
acknowledge that Ed thought of if first? We all see the
card. We all know how to play the card. I get tired of
hearing Ed say "I thought of trumping first."

It's been said that I am advocating the end justifies the
means, that I disregard the rules. I play by the rules,
though I often suggest the rules be bent to deliver better
justice and sometimes rules do get bent to deliver better
justice. Not having appealed Chapnik's "no-jurisdiction"
setting aside of Parker's Pitt Protection within 7 days is
just no reason to allow a no-jurisdiction order to stand.
Pitt's decision was never set aside by a court of competent
jurisdiction no matter what any lower courts say they think
they've done. We'll see.

But justifying the means by the ends is what fundamental
justice is all about. "Tough about your rights, government
says it's an emergency." That's fundamental justice!

Usually only in times of war and catastrophe. But the
carnage Canada's children are facing from a summer of stoned
drivers is the kind of emergency the Government must keep
asking the courts to accept is proper reason for invoking
the Charter's principle of fundamental justice. This is the
best way to make their only play though, though the longer
it's been legal in Ontario with no carnage, the weaker their
ploy.

DR: Ask yourself why lawyers would want an end to
prohibition? that would take a lot of potential cash out of
their income wouldn't it?

JCT: I think it's more that the victims don't have the
resources to fight back. Can't blame the lawyers. Can blame
those lawyers working under cover for the other side though.

And we are the victims who appealed first. We are the
appellants against Lederman despite having a later number.
The Crown was never Appellant nor were the Hitzigs. The only
people with "Appellant" beside their names on the Style of
Cause of the Lederman Appeal are:

No: C39738
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Between:
TERRANCE PARKER
Applicant
Appellant and Respondent in Cross-Appeal

- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Cross-Appellant and Respondent in appeal

No: C39740
And between:
JOHN C. TURMEL AND J.J. MARC PAQUETTE
Applicants
Appellants and Respondents in Cross-Appeal
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA
Respondent
Cross-appellant and Respondent in appeal

No: C39532
And between:
WARREN HITZIG, ALISON MYRDEN, MARY-LYNNE CHAMNEY,
CATHERINE DEVRIES, JARI DVORAK, STEPHEN VAN DE KEMP,
DEBORAH ANNE STULTZGIFFIN & MARCO RENDA
Applicants
Cross-Appellants and Respondents in appeal

- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Appellant and Respondent in cross-appeal

JCT: We are the only Appellants in the Appeal. We're not
much interested in the cross-appeal but they've planned to
deal with the "Supply Cross-Appeal" before we deal with
"Access Appeal." Not a chance. Appellant Parker opens the
show, not the Cross-Appellant Crown. Appellant Turmel closes
the show. There's no escaping the line-up. I have a feeling
the judges will cut the time in between on Supply to the
bone.

We can always say that the decision to refuse the stay has
been made and that the issue is estopped. It means nothing.
In 1989, I was acquitted of keeping a common gaming house
and the Crown didn't appeal. Then in 1993 they busted me
again and got another judge of the same court to ignore
"autrefois acquit," (previously acquitted) an even tougher
plea to call upon than issue estoppel, and though I used
both pleas, go read the arguments at my site, they were
rejected. So it so happens I'm an expert on the rare pleas
res judicata, issue estoppel and autrefois acquit. I've got
almost every cited reference on them in my library since
I've fought for it once before.

But I lost. The new judge violated the strict interpretation
of Criminal Statutes to expand the meaning of the word
"gain" (from operating the house, ie, sales as opposed to
winnings from the game) to now include all my "winnings"
that had never been illegal before.

Only Parliament is supposed to be able to put the penal
chains back on by expanding the interpretation of a criminal
statute, not a judge. But Judge Wright did it to me in my
Casino Turmel case. There is the proof positive right in any
courtroom across Canada in their Martin's Criminal Code: R.
v. Turmel: Wright convicted an exceptionally skilled
professional gambler by expanding the meaning of the word
"gain" to include "winnings."

It only made it in the books because I appealed to Ontario
Court of Appeal Justices Finlayson, Abella and Austin who
ruled they failed to see anything wrong with the judge
expanding the meaning of the word "gain" to newly convict
me. And then Supreme Court of Canada Justices L'Heureux-
Dube, Sopinka, and Iaboucci didn't see any problem with
Judge Wright doing Parliament's job of recriminalizing the
gambling I'd just been acquitted of doing by Fontana and
Lennox.

So I've faced Government who want to recriminalize something
I've already gotten decriminalized. Remember, I was the
champion of the gamblers long before I became champion to
the debt slaves and then the medpotters. I won the Blackjack
gaming house legalization in Canada and I learned that being
right about judges not supposedly retrying an issue or
someone who's been previously acquitted, autrefois acquit,
didn't stop them from re-busting me again and getting a new
judge to ignore autrefois acquit, issue estoppel, res
judicata and the strict interpretation of criminal statutes
to reimpose penal prohibition on my card-playing.

So don't ever tell me to count on the courts. They only
provide arenas for combat before the courts of public
opinion.

From 1989 to 1993, we had four wonderful years of legal
Casino Turmel gambling. Gamers were spoiled to a game the
way I want it run and at a cost that I felt I'd want to pay,
tips actually, all to the staff, no owners taking dividends,
and my winnings as the House Pro to pay the rent.

But one judge reinterpreted the law, three Court of Appeal
judges looked the other way to my loud and rarely
forgettable protestations about the "expanded interpretation
of criminal statutes," and three Supremes let the dirty deed
be done of usurping the jurisdiction of Parliament. The
courts can do the dirty deed of revalidating prohibition of
marijuana here again in the very same way.

Being right means nothing when it only takes half a dozen
judges to reimpose thrown-off shackles, especially when no
one knows what's going on and Dizzy Izzy Asper's CanWest
News is making sure no one in Canada knows.

All they learned was that Turmel lost and the cops are
busting people for attending underground games again. But
everyone remembers that interval where Judges Lennox and
Fontana had declared Casino Turmel so fair and proper that
it did not violate the disorderly house prohibitions in the
Criminal Code. Casino Turmel was a gambler's piece of heaven
with nights of entertainment at rock-bottom rakes. Ask
anyone if I didn't run the smoothest most hassle-free set of
rules they ever enjoyed. Until one judge ignored the strict
interpretation of criminal statutes.

From two judges who said I ran it right to one who said he's
changing the meaning of a word to now say I ran it wrong.
And three Appellates and three Supremes who let it stand.
And there it is, har har har har, right in the Martin's
Criminal Code, proof they changed the meaning of a word to
convict me." You call that a strict interpretation of
criminal statutes that was okayed by six of Canada's highest
judges?

Don't anyone tell me I can count on the courts. It can all
be ignored. I had my great logical arguments all the case
law against their changing the word and busting me again.
All ignored when the Crown Attorney, Andre Marin, showed up
in court not with case law or law books but a dictionary to
argue that "gain" and "win" meant the same thing for the
first time in Canadian Legal history. I should publish the
trial transcripts. The appeal do***ents now online tell the
story though. You can bet I did my number on Justices
Finlayson, Abella and Austin in my application for leave to
appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada for letting Judge
Wright get away with expanding the law. Refused. Expanding
the gaming house law stood.

Parliament didn't have to do a thing and from one day when
we had 7 rake-free Poker tables and 21 Blackjack tables
going to the next when it was all illegal. It was all
recriminalized by judges. So don't expect me to have
confidence in the judiciary. Especially when it's on record
most of them are refugees from math schooling.

I am counting on worrying them less with the Supreme Court
of Canada than with the Internet Court of Public Opinion.

And a lot of things need to be fixed before the Big Five
hearings. Still, now the ball is in McLellan's court. The
Attorney General's been the guy we've been fighting with but
it's the Health Ministry's play. They have to comply if they
want to save their MMAR. It's Anne McLellan's decision
whether she obeys the now looming Lederman decision or
flouts it. I'd bet Anne McLellan's first few days this week
are going to be taken up by the decision on whether to obey
the courts or not. Funny the media aren't touching it. But
it's quite the dilemma. Both nightmare scenarios, all due to
being cheap with $350 lousy bucks.

Anyway, the countdown continues.

I hope they let me use Marc's time even if he can't be
there. Otherwise, I'll just have to prepare a shorter
version. Perhaps I'll visit the Paul Coulbeck's Marijuana
Party constituency office while I'm in town to practice my
pitch for the Big Five Appeal day. Terry can practice his
too.

But so much depends on whether McLellan complies or not, I
just have to wait with bated breath. I'd love to be a fly on
the wall of her office. Their last ditch stay has almost no
chance of being heard on time. What exquisite drama.

Will she supply exemptees to gain the Lederman card or will
she not supply and lose the card to us?

And only 3 clear work days for her to decide. And, perhaps,
get it delivered. I'm sure if they only announce it on
Wednesday and it doesn't get there by midnight, they'll be
in non-compliance even having distributed the pot! Wouldn't
that be fun?

I should be off-line for a few days. Nothing short of a
sudden Court of Appeal panel should need a report.

Now for some good news for the good guys.

Coming up real soon is our equivalent "Lederman" hearing in
Quebec for Turmel-Dupuis-Massicotte-Appleby-Burkholder.
Actually, right after we see what the Minister does.

And coming up real soon is the return of Johnny Dupuis
quashing his cultivation charge, equivalent to my Aitken
Quash for trafficking, but with better grounds than even I
have since Parker's decision mentioned cultivation and
failed to mention trafficking. It's imperative that Johnny
quash his cultivation charge before I have to try to quash
mine.

Isn't nice to know that the Turmel juggernaut has two more
unexpected Big Guns primed and ready to fire just across the
Ottawa river that almost everyone had forgotten about. Come
on, how many people thought I was going to the gunfight with
Kid Windsor and his Pop-Gun and only a four-shooter. I've
had a six-shooter all along.

As soon as the Ash Wednesday comes along and we know how the
Lederman card falls, it will be time to trigger the French
"Lederman" declaration and then right after, the French
Aitken quash. And hopefully as close to the 29th as I can
manage.

Wouldn't that help our hand to have Dupuis' cultivation
charges quashed before anyone in Ontario can argue the law
is alive again? Wouldn't it help our hand to have the
declaration that both the access and supply provisions in
the MMAR failed to comply with Parker before anyone in
Ontario can say they did?

Surprise, Turmel's bringing a six-shooter to the gun-fight
and getting two early shots.

Now figure out the best-worst for all parties in both cases
where the Lederman approbates or condemns the MMAR.

Now, keep in mind that the Big Media have kept a lid on the
real story behind the revalidation attempts. Telling a
couple of dozen thousand people means nothing if they don't
spread the word. The whole story is at
http://yahoogroups.com/group/medpot

Spread the word of the judicial revalidation attempt and how
we're trying to stop it. What exquisited tension! A complete
cave-in by the Health Minister in 3 days or a total turkey-
shoot on the 29th with Lederman as one of our canons.

Nothing but a miracle stay, the long-shot, can hurt us.

--
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 613-562-0669 USENET: can.politics