|
|
 | | From: | John Turmel | | Subject: | TURMEL: Contempt motion filed after Crown disobeys Order | | Date: | 9 Jan 2005 02:34:22 GMT |
|
|
 |
JCT: You'll remember that Thursday night, I pointed out that
the Crown had disobeyed the Court's Order to provide a
written Factum within 3 work days of the Tuesday hearing
explaining their arguments why Parker and Krieger do not
apply in quashing Johnson's cultivation charges.
Other than they have no argument, why would they miss the
deadline? Lawyers are experts are baffle-gabbing. Of course,
they knew that on Friday morning the Dynamic Duo Pierre
Drouin and Real Martin were slated for the return of their
old motions to quash and brand new short notice motions to
cite the Crown for contempt. We were looking forward to it
so I guess they didn't want to give us anything new to work
with.
It's easy to merely file a motion for an extension of time
with their Factum, something done all the time, but they
must also include an affidavit explaining why they screwed
up. Har har har har.
So just because the Crown didn't obey on time doesn't mean
they won't be able to obey by Monday or Tuesday and still
get away with it. They'll probably offer to adjourn so we
have time to consider their material!
But until they found out what happened with the Dynamic Duo
in Cochrane, they probably decided they were just
disrespecting the judge's order by only 1 or 2 days and it
only loses them the embarrassment of having to ask for an
extension of time.
But deliberately disobeying an order shows contempt for that
court. Imagine simply deliberately disrespecting a judge's
direct order for tactical reasons. So on Friday morning,
Richard Johnson filed a new short notice motion for his
Tuesday Jan 11 hearing in Ontario Court of Justice to cite
the Crown Attorney for contempt of court.
Not contempt of this court, actually, the motion he filed is
about the contempt for disobeying the Krieger Order. Like
everyone else. It just so happens that the first time we
make the case that the Crown has shown contempt for the
Krieger court is before a judge who just happens to have
been dissed too! Har har har har.
Maybe Richard should write up a motion to cite the crown for
contempt for not producing their Factum on time. He can
probably make the point Tuesday anyway as the Crown asks the
court for the right to comment again!
Anyway, the Crown showing contempt for the judge who is
going to rule on whether the Crown showed contempt for the
Krieger Court sure adds zest to Tuesday's confrontation,
doesn't it? Har har har har.
Oh, and to add to the Crown nightmare, not only did the
Crown get Richard's Contempt Motion in Elliot Lake on the
very same Friday the Crown were expecting it in Cochrane
criminal court from Pierre and Real, but also today, Doug
Nielsen and family filed their Contempt motion in Ontario
Superior Court of Justice in plenty of time to cite the
Crown at their Friday Jan 14 hearing next week while getting
their charges quashed by an Order of Prohibition for the
same reasons.
Here's Doug and Laurie's report to medpot-discuss on the ins
and outs of getting their documents served:
>Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 02:07:59 +0000
>From: buds_4_life@rogers.com (doug_laurie_nielsen)
>Subject: [MedPot-discuss] BOMBS AWAY !!!!
Well it's official. today we served the crown with our
citation for contempt of court. When Doug asked for someone
to sign for it he was told that she couldn't do it, the
usual run around. so he asked "is there anyone in the
crown's office that CAN sign?" She went & got his secretary.
GNINA. think that's her name. we've all met before. lol. She
came right out & said "we do not sign for motions". he told
her it wasn't exactly a motion. she read a bit of it & asked
"who's representing this"? Doug said "I am". she told him to
wait while they read it. this was new since they usually
just send him away immediately with no service.
Doug: "I looked down the hallway & could see Greg Smith at
his desk. we looked right at each other, while the secretary
dropped the bomb on his desk. after briefly skimming through
it I heard him tell her "I don't even know what this is". he
got up & slammed the door shut. it was about 15 minutes
later when she came out & told me that she was told to tell
us to go get service the way we normally do"
What a bunch of crap. does he really think he's putting us
out? we have to go to the courthouse after his office anyway
& there are many people there that can swear service. we
learned ways around things from the best. John. & how to get
service signed for FREE. or does he think it's costing us
money to get a lawyer to sign? we learned to take it to a
commissioner of oaths. pretty much any registrar's office
has one right there. that simple.
remember back when Greg Smith's office tried to prevent us
from serving the lower court with the motion, saying we
didn't have service & he phoned them at the courthouse &
told them not to sign for it. WE DO. Not one person behind
the counter at that courthouse would step up to the plate &
sign. they made us drag a J.P. in to swear service. even
though we've since found out there are at least two people
that can do it there almost all the time. Also we were given
a bit of run around at Superior court when we went to file
the motion with John back in November.
We think we might have inadvertently prevented them from
being able to give us the run around this time. if they had
any plans of it.
We stood between the Small Claim's & Superior Court wicket &
asked if there was someone there to swear service. they
instinctively got the small claim's commissioner to swear it
& then we sprung it on the Superior court registrar to file
it. so if Smith called the Superior Court & told them not to
accept it for lack of service. it didn't do any good since
we didn't go there for service. lol
When we got to the courthouse the commissioner asked "what
is this, I've never seen anything like this before" & she
started to glance through it. We didn't tell her what it was
exactly. just that it was a citation order since she was
only the Small Claim's registrar & she couldn't file it
anyway. as she read it her eyebrows lifted & she smiled.
that told us she understood it. lol She took Doug's oath &
signed it.
The next woman who was the Superior Court Registrar asked if
this was a separate motion than the first. we told her no.
we want them both heard on the 14th. she went off & looked
up our motion then came back & glanced through the crown
citation. she chuckled & said "we'll file it & then go from
there".
it might have just been us, but it sure seemed like people
were looking at us funny...with quirky little smiles. almost
like they were expecting us or something. maybe they were
trying to say who the hell do you think you are?. it was an
interesting reaction though. & we could see other workers in
the back ground whispering to each other. D & L
JCT: Actually, when you think about how a clerk sees one of
these motions the first time, there's a demand for to tape
record with the Section of the Act she didn't know about,
then there's an "in case" affidavit ready to go on the back
of the document, surely enough of a "never-seen-before"
document to grab the attention.
Anyway, did delaying filing their Factum past Cochrane Day
pap off? Was it worth all the embarrassment of having to
explain why you missed the deadline just to find out what
happened first on Friday in Cochrane before writing the
Factum for the Tuesday hearing in Elliot Lake? Was it worth
it?
I don't know if the glitch was serendipitous but Pierre's
printer broke down and he didn't have the documentation
ready for an unscheduled "force-your-way-on-the-show" kind
of hearing before the 3-hour trip to court. So they skipped
it and will file officially for the next legal day of
criminal court sittings. They never made it to Cochrane.
Hope the Crown weren't disappointed by their failure to
show. Har har har har. They were late for nothing. Nyuk nyuk
nyuk nyuk nyuk.
Met a 19-year old in Brantford charged with possessing 1
joint and his case is coming up in Brantford court within 2
weeks. Har har har har.
--
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
|
|
| | From: | complaints at mistral.net | | Subject: | Re: TURMEL: Contempt motion filed after Crown disobeys Order | | Date: | Sun, 09 Jan 2005 11:17:49 +0000 |
|
|
| On 9 Jan 2005 02:34:22 GMT, bc726@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Turmel)
wrote:
>
>JCT: You'll remember that Thursday night, I pointed out that
>the Crown had disobeyed the Court's Order to provide a
>written Factum within 3 work days of the Tuesday hearing
>explaining their arguments why Parker and Krieger do not
>apply in quashing Johnson's cultivation charges.
>
Is this about drugs?
>Other than they have no argument, why would they miss the
>deadline? Lawyers are experts are baffle-gabbing. Of course,
>they knew that on Friday morning the Dynamic Duo Pierre
>Drouin and Real Martin were slated for the return of their
>old motions to quash and brand new short notice motions to
>cite the Crown for contempt. We were looking forward to it
>so I guess they didn't want to give us anything new to work
>with.
>
>It's easy to merely file a motion for an extension of time
>with their Factum, something done all the time, but they
>must also include an affidavit explaining why they screwed
>up. Har har har har.
>
>So just because the Crown didn't obey on time doesn't mean
>they won't be able to obey by Monday or Tuesday and still
>get away with it. They'll probably offer to adjourn so we
>have time to consider their material!
>
>But until they found out what happened with the Dynamic Duo
>in Cochrane, they probably decided they were just
>disrespecting the judge's order by only 1 or 2 days and it
>only loses them the embarrassment of having to ask for an
>extension of time.
>
>But deliberately disobeying an order shows contempt for that
>court. Imagine simply deliberately disrespecting a judge's
>direct order for tactical reasons. So on Friday morning,
>Richard Johnson filed a new short notice motion for his
>Tuesday Jan 11 hearing in Ontario Court of Justice to cite
>the Crown Attorney for contempt of court.
>
>Not contempt of this court, actually, the motion he filed is
>about the contempt for disobeying the Krieger Order. Like
>everyone else. It just so happens that the first time we
>make the case that the Crown has shown contempt for the
>Krieger court is before a judge who just happens to have
>been dissed too! Har har har har.
>
>Maybe Richard should write up a motion to cite the crown for
>contempt for not producing their Factum on time. He can
>probably make the point Tuesday anyway as the Crown asks the
>court for the right to comment again!
>
>Anyway, the Crown showing contempt for the judge who is
>going to rule on whether the Crown showed contempt for the
>Krieger Court sure adds zest to Tuesday's confrontation,
>doesn't it? Har har har har.
>
>Oh, and to add to the Crown nightmare, not only did the
>Crown get Richard's Contempt Motion in Elliot Lake on the
>very same Friday the Crown were expecting it in Cochrane
>criminal court from Pierre and Real, but also today, Doug
>Nielsen and family filed their Contempt motion in Ontario
>Superior Court of Justice in plenty of time to cite the
>Crown at their Friday Jan 14 hearing next week while getting
>their charges quashed by an Order of Prohibition for the
>same reasons.
>
>Here's Doug and Laurie's report to medpot-discuss on the ins
>and outs of getting their documents served:
>
>>Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 02:07:59 +0000
>>From: buds_4_life@rogers.com (doug_laurie_nielsen)
>>Subject: [MedPot-discuss] BOMBS AWAY !!!!
>
>Well it's official. today we served the crown with our
>citation for contempt of court. When Doug asked for someone
>to sign for it he was told that she couldn't do it, the
>usual run around. so he asked "is there anyone in the
>crown's office that CAN sign?" She went & got his secretary.
>GNINA. think that's her name. we've all met before. lol. She
>came right out & said "we do not sign for motions". he told
>her it wasn't exactly a motion. she read a bit of it & asked
>"who's representing this"? Doug said "I am". she told him to
>wait while they read it. this was new since they usually
>just send him away immediately with no service.
>
>Doug: "I looked down the hallway & could see Greg Smith at
>his desk. we looked right at each other, while the secretary
>dropped the bomb on his desk. after briefly skimming through
>it I heard him tell her "I don't even know what this is". he
>got up & slammed the door shut. it was about 15 minutes
>later when she came out & told me that she was told to tell
>us to go get service the way we normally do"
>
>What a bunch of crap. does he really think he's putting us
>out? we have to go to the courthouse after his office anyway
>& there are many people there that can swear service. we
>learned ways around things from the best. John. & how to get
>service signed for FREE. or does he think it's costing us
>money to get a lawyer to sign? we learned to take it to a
>commissioner of oaths. pretty much any registrar's office
>has one right there. that simple.
>
>remember back when Greg Smith's office tried to prevent us
>from serving the lower court with the motion, saying we
>didn't have service & he phoned them at the courthouse &
>told them not to sign for it. WE DO. Not one person behind
>the counter at that courthouse would step up to the plate &
>sign. they made us drag a J.P. in to swear service. even
>though we've since found out there are at least two people
>that can do it there almost all the time. Also we were given
>a bit of run around at Superior court when we went to file
>the motion with John back in November.
>
>We think we might have inadvertently prevented them from
>being able to give us the run around this time. if they had
>any plans of it.
>
>We stood between the Small Claim's & Superior Court wicket &
>asked if there was someone there to swear service. they
>instinctively got the small claim's commissioner to swear it
>& then we sprung it on the Superior court registrar to file
>it. so if Smith called the Superior Court & told them not to
>accept it for lack of service. it didn't do any good since
>we didn't go there for service. lol
>
>When we got to the courthouse the commissioner asked "what
>is this, I've never seen anything like this before" & she
>started to glance through it. We didn't tell her what it was
>exactly. just that it was a citation order since she was
>only the Small Claim's registrar & she couldn't file it
>anyway. as she read it her eyebrows lifted & she smiled.
>that told us she understood it. lol She took Doug's oath &
>signed it.
>
>The next woman who was the Superior Court Registrar asked if
>this was a separate motion than the first. we told her no.
>we want them both heard on the 14th. she went off & looked
>up our motion then came back & glanced through the crown
>citation. she chuckled & said "we'll file it & then go from
>there".
>
>it might have just been us, but it sure seemed like people
>were looking at us funny...with quirky little smiles. almost
>like they were expecting us or something. maybe they were
>trying to say who the hell do you think you are?. it was an
>interesting reaction though. & we could see other workers in
>the back ground whispering to each other. D & L
>
>JCT: Actually, when you think about how a clerk sees one of
>these motions the first time, there's a demand for to tape
>record with the Section of the Act she didn't know about,
>then there's an "in case" affidavit ready to go on the back
>of the document, surely enough of a "never-seen-before"
>document to grab the attention.
>
>Anyway, did delaying filing their Factum past Cochrane Day
>pap off? Was it worth all the embarrassment of having to
>explain why you missed the deadline just to find out what
>happened first on Friday in Cochrane before writing the
>Factum for the Tuesday hearing in Elliot Lake? Was it worth
>it?
>
>I don't know if the glitch was serendipitous but Pierre's
>printer broke down and he didn't have the documentation
>ready for an unscheduled "force-your-way-on-the-show" kind
>of hearing before the 3-hour trip to court. So they skipped
>it and will file officially for the next legal day of
>criminal court sittings. They never made it to Cochrane.
>Hope the Crown weren't disappointed by their failure to
>show. Har har har har. They were late for nothing. Nyuk nyuk
>nyuk nyuk nyuk.
>
>Met a 19-year old in Brantford charged with possessing 1
>joint and his case is coming up in Brantford court within 2
>weeks. Har har har har.
|
|
|
