bc726

the only people who are discussing the real situation are
at cannabisnews.com

CN: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/17/thread17031.shtml

JCT: I forget what the main story was but this takes place
in the discussions rather than in the major media story. The
major media don't report it so it doesn't get into the
minor cannabis type databases. I've heard complaints about
Richard Lake's mapinc only highlighting the orthodox media
views. And we all know what they are.

CN: Comment #1 posted by Virgil on
Date: August 09, 2003 at 21:29:03 PT
Turmel has transcribed some more

V: Turmel is spending such an effort to get the words
transcribed from his 12 hours of tapes - I think they are
video but at one point he mentioned boombox - that he does
not really explain the issues and the arguments.

JCT: No, no video though I did ask in the motion that didn't
get dealt with.

V: But at least with 959 he gives a legend of the initials.
You just have to figure out who they are-
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MedPot/message/959>
For example he will say Y= Young but will not say Allan
Young representing ***xx.

JCT: I did for the the legend in some reports but there was
only one Y: who ever did any speaking, only one D: and one
G: and one T: so I hope it wasn't too much of an
inconvenience. If it's ever published for the vast majority
who don't know what happened, we could do the full name.

V: I think this is the seventh installment with at least one
more.

JCT: From A to H, around 10 pages each and missing the first
6 hours of 12 that dealt with the constitutionality of the
MMAR that the court found to be misguided. Goes to show they
should have let us do our stuff first about the CDSA and
they they would have been able to determine the MMAR shot
was misguided faster. Perhaps out in a day, rather than 3?

V: There are three judges ruling for the Ontario Supreme
Court and their names are Doherty, Goudge, and Simmons.
Turmel's words make the most sense in it all. At some point
the court heard of the United States's interest and the
audience gasp. There is one question being heard that has to
do with the states interests and if laws should defer to
them because of state interest and one interest would be
that the US may retailiate. There is the issue of balance
between the individuals(freedom) amd the Canadian
government. The question is asked by Judge Doherty. Turmel's
answer makes great sense and is surely a line of reasoning
that the Crown's lawyers did not want to hear. What it all
means is still a mystery to me.
[...
D: Mr. Turmel, I don't know if you want to deal with a
"lawyer's question" on fundamental justice?

T: Well, yeah... this is not good enough to
let 10 epileptics a day die. Thank you my Lords.

JCT: It's 100 dead epileptics a day in the United States.
Don't their marijuana court challenges mention the right to
life of 100 dead epileptics a day? Could it be that they're
focused on the same "right to security" that the Alan Young
team have focused on in Canada? No guerrilla law engineers?
Maybe I could do it from Canada? Any epileptics in the
States want to complain about not being able to carry a
joint with you for protection?

V: Since this is cannabis news on the forefront of the
collapse that is coming to prohibition, I want to copy some
more words from Turmel, because he does not buy into the
bullshit and the techniques by which the government says
that cannabis does not help epilepsy.

Terry Parker is involved in this case and the original case
on July 31,2000 that gave the government a year to fix the
supply problem. The MMAR(Medical Marijuana Access
Regulations) were introduced on July 30th of 2001. I could
be wrong, but I think it was Turmel that represented Terry
Parker in that case.
T: Yes, I understand the government's mind set... it's not
the buzz that saves him from his seizures, it's the other
cannabinoids.

JCT: Aaron Harnett won Parker's 2000 case at the Court of
Appeal but when the Government blew the 1-year Aug. 1 2001
deadline and Parker's 1-year exemption ran out without
solving Parker's conundrum, Harnett wouldn't make the motion
to declare prohibition dead without getting paid to finish
the job and Parker couldn't convince George Soros to finish
the funding to finish the job. That's why I eventually
decided to finish the job at guerrilla law rates.

But Harnett did alert Health Canada that they'd blown Parker
and 6 weeks too late, they alerted him he had a 6-month
extension like all exemptees to get his specialists to fill
out his forms to qualify. On September 14 2001.

In November 2001, the OMA told their doctors the MMAR were
unethical and dissuaded them from signing. Parker's doctor
refused to participate.

On March 14, he was expiring. In February, Terry told me to
engineer his resistance. I moved to the Court of Appeal that
they declare the law dead for the failure and they sent
Terry to a lower court of competent jurisdiction. The Crown
failed to show up for the hearing where Justice Pitt
reserved his decision on a short notice motion to declare
the law dead or extend his exemption and 2 hours later,
granted the extension of the Court of Appeal's exemption.

Then we went back to try to declare the law dead because
Pitt said he had had to protect Parker because the
Government had not complied with the Parker ruling. Pitt's
decision was improperly set aside and the case refered to
Lederman who was dealing with Alan Young's Hitzig
application to declare the MMAR access regulations
unconstitutional due to the right to a secure supply. Parker
was right to life.

V: Anyway, it was Turmel's belief is that introducing a
paper of guidelines did not do anything to get Terry Parker
MMJ by the date given. He said after the MMAR was introduced
he waited one more day and when August 1, 3001 came without
a satisfactory supply for Parker, the cannabis laws fell. He
calls this Terry Parker Day and he says cultivation and
possession of any quantity of cannabis no longer existed.
Possession and cultivation crimes became unknown to law on
Terry Parker Day, as Turmel calls it. I think Allan Young
now represents Parker, but damn if I really know.

JCT: Young never represented Parker except once as a friend
of the court when he helped the Crown get the Pitt decision
set aside so he could launch his Hitzig Application. Why use
Hitzig to declare they didn't comply if Pitt had already
declared they didn't comply. Pitt had to be set aside and
Young's goal was the same as the Crown's when the judge
asked Terry if he minded if Young spoke for him after being
introduced by the Crown. That's the only time Young had
Parker's permission to speak for him. It was on April 17th
2001.

Parker represented himself and I was given permission, as
his coach and teammate, to play most of the cards in our
hand. All my guerrilla lawyers have to speak for themselves
even if we all know that the only thing that gets to the


written does. That's why this medpot BLOG is so important.
It contains the actual written words that will be going
north. But everyone speaks for themselves. Marc Paquette, a
couple of dozen times must be a record. Terry only had to
deal with the the Pitt decision alone and by then, I'd
already outlined how we needed Pitt to put an issue estoppel
on Justice Lederman's opinion that Parker needed no
extension of his Court of Appeal protection even if he
didn't qualify.

Keep in mind that's what's at stake here. Pitt said Parker
had to be protected and extended it, Lederman said Parker had
enough protection and didn't extend it. Left him in the
Parker conundrum. Pitt pulled Parker out of the conundrum,
Lederman threw him back in. We have to win Pitt or there's a
dirty deed going on.


V: Turmel has finished putting up the transcripts from
hearings of the Ontario Supreme Court. He speaks of 5 cases
heard on July 28th and July 29th. He put up 960 and
duplicated it in 961 and also 962-
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MedPot/message/961>

It is confusing of course because one path that Young is
persues goes against the MMAR and the July 9th introduction
of an interim policy sometimes called MER- The Marijuana
Exemption Regulations.

Turmel's path says the laws were dead on Terry Parker Day-
August 1, 2001. That is why he walked into the Parliament
building with kilos of ganja for the Prime Minister so that
he would be in court to say that the ganja laws were
"unknown to law" and I think that is why he is a party to
all of this.

The original Terry Parker is in on this on a "right to life"
path that is different from "right to supply" path of Clay.

JCT: Young's "Right to supply" path is "Hitzig et al"
Clay was the case on recreational use with Parker's case on
medical use back in 2000. It just got heard and a decision
is pending at the Supreme Court of Canada. I think they're
waiting for the Big Five to get there first.

V: He speaks of J.P. and I thought maybe it was a judge, but
it must be Pitt. Turmel says he can take being done in on
all cases except Pitt. Pitt is a Charter challenge and the
remedy he seeks is not supply but a declaration that the
laws are dead.

JCT: When we speak of J.P., that's the kid busted with the
joint in the Windsor in the Phillips decision sustained by
Rogin on the technicality. I've called it the technical pop-
gun against my 4 merit cannons. And yes, to win the others
and not Pitt would be illogical and a malevolent motive
would have to be presumed.

V: The government had a year to supply Terry Parker his MMJ
and when they did not, their time was up. It is all over. A
stack of papers would not help him with his life-threatening
epileptic seizures.

Attorney Young says that the MMAR needed to be declared
unconstitutional for the laws to fall while Turmel says they
only need to prove it did not work.

JCT: And Paul Burstein. Burstein just recently laughed at me
for thinking prohibition could be declared dead without
declaring the MMAR unconstitutional. Sounds like I was
right.

V: What did the government do to protect Terry Parker's life
with the time they were allowed and this stuff started back
in 1999 anyhow. These last two postings have commentary and
are easier to follow than the others. But one thing is for
sure. There are no laws against possession of herb in
Ontario as even the Crown's attorney admits it in his
testimony.

JCT: And I've specifically got it in my bail conditions that
I can't use anything on Schedule II and they haven't
reprinted Schedule II yet. What if they don't reprint until
after the government introduces the new prohibitions. I'll
never have a chance to taste the liberty I fought so hard to
win. Arrrggg.

V: What the Crown wanted was to declare the May 16th
decision a mistake of law and it was not granted from the
bench. Until it is reversed there is definitely no
possession laws against herb in Ontario.

Here is the paragraph from message962 where the Crown
attorney DeFreitas says-

De: The one fly in the ointment, I'm going back to this, is
the recent response. We've got a declaration from this court
that the marijuana prohibition is no longer of any force and
effect. There was a government response two weeks ago. So
that the dialogue that's been going on since the very
beginning should really have two parts. One, the
government's intention to continue to criminalize possession
of marijuana, and the second part, the government's
intention to try to make allowance for medicinal use. The
court in Parker said, that's the distinction.

-Unless the Ontario Supreme Court reverses the May 16th
ruling befor the Ontario tour, there is no fear of being
arrested in Ontario on possession charges. I really like the
revised schedule as it does not skip any days and it ends in
Toronto.

I am interested to see how many Americans show up at
Windsor. Since Turmel has given us the transcripts, it is
only fitting that I quote him on something. There is no need
to explain context here. In message961 he says,
"I see a lot of dancing in the streets."


Virgil - the Identity of J.P.
J.P., who as a youth cannot be named, is the defendant from
January 2, 2003 in Windsor under Judge Phillips's ruling
which led to the appeal to Judge Rogin on March, 16, 2003.
See <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MedPot/message/957>
It is confusing, but oh so fascinating.
ego transcendence follows ego destruction, do we really want
to bring ego destruction back; informed cannabis smokers and
medical patients say "No!"

JCT: It's fascinating because your liberty is on the line too.


The News from Edmonton
Emery's Legalization Tour hits Alberta by Dana Larsen (12
Aug, 2003) "Two more busts on the long road to freedom.
Cannabis Culture publisher Marc Emery suffered two more
arrests during the Alberta portion of his Summer of
Legalization cross-country tour. Emery was detained for only
15 minutes after his protest in Calgary, but police in
Edmonton tried to get a judge to detain him for weeks!" F U
L L S T O R Y
<http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/3046.html>
-------------------------------

\medpot\frds\virgil1c
http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/17/thread17052.shtml

***, Drugs and Rock 'n' Roll? Blame Canada
Posted by CN Staff <mailto:editpage@seattle-pi.com> on
Date: August 12, 2003 at 19:36:04 PT
By Les Leyne Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer
<http://www.seattle-pi.com/>

LL: In the 20th century, good old boring, gray Canada was
noticed or cared. But the 21st century Canada is a fast-
breaking new story, going recently in a direction that has
startled Canadians as much as it has everyone else. In May,
Canadians still shaking off the effects of winter awoke one
day to find the federal government had introduced a bill
that will decriminalize possession of small quantities of
marijuana, making it a trivial violation on par with getting
a $150 traffic ticket.

[...Then in June, an Ontario court ruling that will go
unchallenged across most of Canada declared that same-***
marriages are legal.

[...Then the federal government announced the marijuana it
has been growing in a remote northern mine shaft for a pilot
medical-use project will be couriered to doctors and made
available to people with medical certificates for $5
(Canadian) a gram. ***s getting legally married, pot
decriminalized, Ottawa dealing dope -- what's the deal? If
you compare catchphrases -- the United States' "life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness" from the Declaration
of Independence versus Canada's "peace, order and good
government" from the Constitution Act of 1867 -- you
wouldn't think Canada would be breaking new ground on
social-policy fronts. This is the country that brought the
world televised curling.

But it is now looking positively European in some aspects.
The old, faintly perceived image of being cold, cordial and
cloistered is fading. Canada has gone from cold to cool.
From cordial to beyond friendly (look for magazine cover
teasers such as "When Mounties Marry -- Each Other"). And
from cloistered to wide, wide open. Mild-mannered
Canadians, innately polite and orderly, seem to be taking it
in stride so far.

[...Tim Stevenson is the first openly *** ordained
Canadian minister, the first openly *** Cabinet minister in
Canada (in a previous government) and is now a Vancouver
city councilman. Partnered for 21 years and co-father of
three children, he laughs at the new image Americans may
have of Canada: "The pot-smoking queers have taken power!"
Oddly enough, for an ordained minister, Stevenson said the
lessened religious influence is a positive in Canada.
Despite the U.S. history of welcoming people fleeing
oppression, some of it religion-based, he says the irony is
the United States now sometimes resembles a theocratic,
religious republic.

[...Some Canadians are worried about the clout the United
States can bring to bear if it is moved to make its views
about Canada felt. U.S. drug policy director John Walters
already has warned Canada against the new pot laws, which
could make for delays at already clogged border crossings.

[...Keith Martin, an Opposition Member of Parliament from
Vancouver Island, said: "There's a huge mythology that
Canada is a more liberal, socialistic place. There is an
erroneous perception that the U.S. is a monolithic, hard-
right, intolerant Republican place. "But large parts of the
United States would fit comfortably into the Canadian
approach. The picture is a lot more nuanced than that." A
dozen U.S. states have relaxed pot-possession laws, and
large segments of the population don't support the
administration's continued "war" on drugs, he said.

By one estimate, 30 percent of the U.S. population lives
under pot laws as or more lenient than the one introduced in
Canada. Marijuana activist Philippe Lucas, who openly sells
marijuana to people in Victoria with doctor's certificates
saying they need it, agrees. "The U.S. is actually far
ahead of Canada in allowing the medical use of marijuana at
the state level," he said. Eight states, including
Washington, already recognize that special use. Lucas
dismisses the new pot law as not going nearly far enough.
"The original intent of the law was probably good, but it's
a step backward. We had a chance to do something
progressive, and we took a step backward."

The decriminalization of small amounts (under a half-ounce)
simply reflects the reality; street cops using discretion
opted out of arresting people for that offense years ago.
There are two cafes in Vancouver where people smoke it
openly -- no sales are allowed -- with minimal police
interest. Ticketing is actually being touted as a way to
increase enforcement; cops will issue fines, rather than lay
charges. "No one has 'gone Dutch' yet,' " said Lucas,
meaning buying and selling openly, as well. "It's not
something we'll see on the West Coast for a while yet.

"Even if the bill passes, which is very questionable, it
still puts us far behind Europe in terms of progressive
reform. They are miles ahead of us." The Liberal
government's pot law could die in Parliament.

JCT: It's ready to recriminalize when the court's legalize.

LL: Its passage depends on whether outgoing Prime Minister
Jean Chretien is serious about establishing that as a
legacy, or just introduced it to make mischief for his
likely successor, former Finance Minister Paul Martin, with
whom he had a bitter falling-out last year. It's widely
presumed that Martin will win the current leadership race
and be prime minister by early next year, when Chretien
retires. In a recent interview in Victoria, Martin said even
if the pot law doesn't make it through Parliament, he would
continue with decriminalization, coupled with a crackdown on
the biker gangs who deal in it.

JCT: Hey, I want to deal in it. "Turmel's Marijuana
Muffins?" "Cannabis Cookies?" "Ganja Goodies?"

LL: [...One theme common to the decriminalization and the
same-*** marriage issues is that both were spurred by court
rulings over the years flowing from the 21-year-old Charter
of Rights and Freedoms. The country relied for its charter
on British law up until 1982, so the constitution is still
in its infancy. And ***s and marijuana activists made
determined and ingenious use of it and other legal arguments
over the years in pushing their respective causes.

Americans looking northward will notice other recent
developments. Canada opted to sit out the U.S.-led war in
Iraq, and the government enjoyed considerable support in
making that decision. The government is also pursuing a
stringent national gun-control regime, even though it has
been established to be scandalously inefficient and
monstrously over budget.

Inside Canada, it's startling to note both the recent
swerves originated in Ontario,

JCT: It's where Parker and Turmel live. What did you expect?

L: although the flaky Left Coast (the California of Canada)
is supposed to be in the vanguard of social change. Wherever
it's coming from, central Canada, the charter of rights or
newly discovered fundamental social differences with the
United States, it's been a remarkable few months on the
social-policy front.

If some of these attitudes start creeping over the 49th
parallel, Americans are advised to start singing the Oscar-
nominated song from the "South Park" movie of a few years
ago: "Blame Canada." Les Leyne is a writer for the Victoria
Times Colonist's Legislature Bureau.

JCT: Over the 49th parallel? Small potatoes. I'm aiming for
the UN conventions on prohibited cannabis.


V: Letting people legalize partnerships and restoring
freedom to what was always free before unconstitutional
growth of federal power for a police state and a Rolling
Stones concert. You have got to be kidding me, with some
goofy crap with they are over the line with ***, drugs, rock
and roll. There has always been *** everywhere

JCT: But now they'll need lawyers to break up just like
heteros do.

V: and cannabis was here before us. And do you not think the
Rolling Stones have played more in the US than in Canada as
if that has anything to do with anything. This writer must
be a washed-up has been or never-was or work cheap.

It is not only goofy, it is lacking in the real story of
herb since the May 16th ruling of Judge Rogin in Superior
Court affirming the January 2nd ruling of Judge Steven
Phillips that said that possession was not a crime known to
law in Canada. Why can he not hit the nail on the head?

JCT: He was getting his info from Philippe Lucas, wasn't he?
Maybe Philippe hasn't been following the Ontario Court
cases and isn't aware of the real story?

V: Granted he may not be allowed to, but just being goofy is
embarrassing.

JCT: Hidden editors decide what we read. Can't really blame
reporters.

V: Thanks Afterburner for saying J.P. was the 17 year-old
minor in the January 2nd case heard by Judge Phillips. Judge
Pitt made some ruling in the Terry Parker case and possibly
the July 31, 2001 ruling saying the government's program for
MMJ was unconstitutional and granted them a year stay to fix
it.

JCT: No, July 31st ruling was by 3 judges at the top in the
Court of Appeal who said they had a year to comply. Pitt's
the lower court Superior judge who said they had not
complied if Parker was unprotected and protected him.

V: Now Judge Rogin did not say that the manufacture and sale
of cannabis was illegal. Someone should say it and the
Crown's attorney mentioned the abolishment of prohibition in
the 5 cases heard July 28 and 29.

JCT: The Aitken appeal in R. v. Turmel for possession for
the purpose of trafficking is to declare marijuana off the
schedule that affects the other sections with possession.

V: Cannabis is no longer referenced in Section 4 and is just
like tomatoes in Ontario.

JCT: Cannabis was never referenced in Section 4 to be
unreferenced. Section 4 says it's illegal to possess
anything on the banned schedule. Cannabis is no longer
referenced in the Schedule that is refered to by s.4
possession, s.5 possession to traffic, s.7 cultivation.

V: No one wants to say it and that is why Marc Emery is
doing his tour.

JCT: He's certainly proving that the Parker decision applies
in all provinces by being busted in all provinces. Wish him
luck in getting busted in them all. But he's not really
proving the other sections with his half-gram busts. Now, I
really don't blame him. I did that one, no need for two
martyrs. And I appreciate what he's doing regardless of why.

V: He is not trying to change the law. He is saying there is
no law and in Ontario he is not going to be challenged with
100 plants or a 1000.

JCT: Until R. v. Turmel determines that effecting the Parker
decision meant erasing marijuana from the Schedule, you
might hear what Justice Aitken told me: only for section 4.

V: For myself, I believe he is right in saying there are no
laws resreicting herb in all of Canada. It is a big secret
and they arrest him so that the issue is not clear. I think
he has a court date tomorrow that will make it clear that he
is right. Oh my!

JCT: Every lower court decision backing up judges in
Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia has to help in
convincing our "for the whole country" panel of 3 to do the good deed.


A: not his first choice, surely. He would rather the police
just acknowledged the lack of a cannabis prohibition law.
But barring that in the hard-nose jurisdictions, he is
willing to deliberately get charged with possession just to
get the courts to acknowledge the absence of cannabis
prohibition. The courts deliberate slowly, so they won't
necessarily make a decision tomorrow.

Turmel sees cannabis as being taken out of schedule two,
thereby repealing the law against not only cannabis
possession, but also against cannabis "trafficking" and
against cannabis "cultivation."

JCT: Bingo.

A: Marc and his lawyer agree with this interpretation. Marc
goes on to say that paraphernalia laws can no longer
prohibit pipes and such used to smoke a legal plant.

JCT: Good. Let Marc traffic over 30 grams in marijuana
muffins to an old-age home. I'll bring my accordion.

A: Last Saturday I was passing out flyers for the upcoming
Canabian Day in Toronto. This is one of two events in August
in addition to the Summer of Legalization Tour.

The first is Hempfest 2003 / Weedstock. Hempfest 2003:
August 22, 23, 24 Northern Ont., near Sault Ste Marie
"Camping, bands, speakers, vendors, lazer lights and plenty
to go around." <http://www.planetarypride.com>

JCT: Disinvited from speaking at the 2001 hempfest though I
did. And banned from the 2002 hempfest and I didn't.

A: The second is Canabian Day. "Come celebrate cannabis
freedom in Toronto. Cannabis in Canada presents Canabian
Day. August 30, 2003, in Toronto's Trinity Bellwoods Park.
Celebrate cannabis freedom from 1-5pm, with live bands,
guest speakers and an irie vibe."

JCT: Sounds like fun. But should I make a motion to the
Court of Appeal to vary my bail condition so I'm just barred
from using any illegal substance, rather than any substance
in the Schedules. Otherwise, I'd have to keep running down-
wind of everyone.
A: <http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/3040.html>
Marc Emery is planning to be there. It looks like I'll be
there selling Summer of Legalization Tour t-shirts and
issues of Cannabis Culture. $1 of each sale goes to the Marc
Emery Legal Defence Fund. I just received an email from Marc
saying that he likes the t-shirts. Anyone not able to make
either event, contact afterburner@boxfrog.com for details
about the t-shirts. ego transcendence follows ego
destruction, cannabis freedom keeps growing stronger.

JCT: I'm not quite sure how Emery's going to like my being
there. What's he going to do? Call in an army to throw me
and my accordion out?

--
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