 |
JCT: If the Crown still want to get a factum before the
court by Tuesday, it would certainly help them to get is
served on Richard today so he has at least 1 day's notice
rather than just springing it on him and the court right at
the hearing.
That's if they have a Factum of arguments to present! Har
har.
Anything they sign their names to only gets them deeper! Har
har har har.
Maybe they'll get Harvey Frankel to sign this one!! Har har.
I don't remember the last time the Crown ducked their
Factum. I'd have to check my archives but this could be a
first. Especially, a factum demanded by the court.
It's not like situations where a factum is required and
expected and sometimes late. Here, the court specifically
ordered both sides to produce facta (love using the Latin
plural) of their arguments. And the Crown specifically
refused to hand in their factum.
If they have now noted their omission and are going to try
to correct, things would certainly look better for them to
get Richard filed today. They'll look so much better than if
they file tomorrow. There was no reason to prefer Monday
over Tuesday, unless the rumor of a quash being moved in
Manitoba pans out!
Could they be holding off in case the Manitoba Kid files his
short notice motion to quash and cite the Crown for
contempt? Is that what they're worried about? That I might
have the Manitoba Kid coming at them later this morning and
they don't want to give anything up until they know!
If they have a factum for tomorrow, probably so.
xBut how often have I had a motion coming at them without
announcing it in advance? Almost never. I'd have to have
something pretty big to gain by keeping it quiet for me not
to boast about it. What would I have to gain by not telling
the Crown whether the Manitoba Kid's going to hit them on
S.4 Possession before they face their Knock-Out from Richard
on S.7 Cultivation tomorrow?
So much can be worked out with deductions and logical
inferences.
Again, the only reason I focus on this particular failure to
obey a court order by the government is that it really is so
rare for government to disobey in this way. Unheard of in my
experience. And I can't help focusing in on where they've
shown weakness. Something must be making them pretty scared
to put why "the law's not dead" in writing when faced with
the Krieger decision and motions for contempt citations.
Come on? Can anyone think of some hidden motive for the
Crown to have not filed their factum unless it's game over?
Or they wanted to find out about Cochrane and Manitoba
first.
And could what looks major stalling by the Supreme Court of
Canada be to give the lower courts the chance to kill the
law before they have to. Maybe I should delay all offensive
moves and push it alone at the top? Har har. If their plan
is to lose in the lower courts.
Of course, should they file something today, it just gives
us more sworn evidence of the contempt and abuse. What Crown
Attorney's going to sign the government's next
prohibitionist Memorandum! Har har har har.
Their last Memorandum proved the Ace of Diamonds. Their next
Memorandum gives Turmel the Spade Ace.
Think about it. Because of the last time the Attorney
General signed his name to the truth, now he's getting
smashed by it. There were on 3 copies of the Frankel clause
in the world until I dug out and made copy number 4th.
No one knew about the Calgary media until I dug out the
cover-up.
Who in their right mind is going to sign the next Memorandum
The Engineer's going to get his hands one? Note no Crown
response to the Nielsen Application. No reply whatsoever.
Note no response to the Mike South appeal. Note no response
to Turmel at the Supreme Court where I have a right to be.
With only a lousy clerk between me and Justice. At 4 dead
epileptics a day. All blamed on whoever ordered the hold-up.
And believe I don't think it was the clerk all by herself.
>Supreme Court Justice McLachlin's interview
>Date: Jan 8 2005, 12:10 PM
>The Globe and Mail
>Judicial activism debate on decline
Photo: Bill Grimshaw/The Globe and Mail
Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley
Mclachlin is seen poring over paperwork
in her Ottawa office earlier this week.
>From Saturday's Globe and Mail
>By KIRK MAKIN
JCT: It's funny, almost every senior reporter in Canada has
done an interview with me.
KM: A long, rancorous debate over judicial activism has
waned, thanks to a growing understanding that judges
sometimes have no choice but to strike down laws, Chief
Justice Beverley McLachlin says.
JCT: Our problem is not that judges sometimes have no choice
but to strike down laws, it's that they sometimes think they
have no choice but to strike up laws.
KM: [... Chief Justice McLachlin has also worked hard to
make the secret workings of the Canadian Judicial Council
more transparent, and to explain how the justice system
works.
"She says it is a myth that the courts can decline to decide
Charter issues," Mr. Jamal said. "The court's function is to
resolve disputes citizens bring to them _ even if a judge's
personal inclination may be to avoid a difficult issue."
JCT: Har har har har.
KM: [... Allan Hutchinson, another York University law
professor, said Chief Justice McLachlin's image as a warm
individual in step with her times has rubbed off on the
court.
"She has been very good at presenting the Supreme Court as a
modern, 'cooler' institution," he said.
JCT: It might like like modern "cooler" system to a non-
engineer.
KM: [... Many critics have also begun to question whether
the McLachlin court shies away from granting leave to appeal
in cases with explosive potential.
JCT: What's the most potentially explosive case on the
horizon? What's more explosive than the Scandal of the
quarter million bogus charges? Actually, when you realise
they usually lay many different charges for the same offence
and settle on one, it might be safe to call it the Scandal
of the million Bogus Charges or the Scandal of the quarter
million bogus convictions.
KM: With a team of independent-minded rookies beginning to
hit their legal stride and the impending retirement of the
court's senior statesman, Mr. Justice Jack Major, Chief
Justice McLachlin has barely begun to skate.
JCT: Maybe they're young enough to know the truth about
marijuana (no matter how many people they wrongly convicted
while they were judges) and maybe young enough that their
balls (metaphorically) are still working. Doesn't look good
so far.
I'm not giving up getting the top court to sign off in the
end to abolition. Anything less won't be as convincing to a
Crown who can't understand laws struck down as charter
violations by the province's highest court are binding on
all other provinces.
I can only add lower court wins to my charge. And we're not
waiting for another trip through the Ontario Court of Appeal
until they've had their proficiency-in-arithmetic hearings.
As far as I'm concerned, my motion has a statutory right to
be heard at the top. With no response to my letter insisting
on having my request heard pursuant to my S.65.1(1) card,
does that mean it's in?
Or is it stalled until I ask to find out the stall alibi?
Or course, any win below takes the pressure off the top
court because as soon as it's accepted as no longer valid
everywhere in Canada, Turmel v. Hitzig becomes moot. It's
won elsewhere and needs no more argument here. Once it's
accepted Canada-wide.
Hey, I still have another unplayed card in my SCC #30571
hand, don't I, that makes them drop all charges? How will
Krieger wins below fit in? May as well think about it. They
must seen it coming at them too by now.
Still, the only to avoid a messy confrontation between The
Engineer and the Supreme Court Bench is to mooten my cases
by ceding Krieger cases below. Neat eh? No wonder each lower
court shot is such fun, it serves the purposes of the courts
above.
Anyway, I remain stunned at the Crown's audacity at directly
disobeying the court's order to file their arguments in
writing. I remain stunned to realize that the next Crown who
signs his name to a lie loses his career! I guess judges who
sign their names to conviction papers having learned of
Krieger will now lose them too! I'm for finding better
judges if they blow this test of ethics.
I know I've been knocked for chortling that I have 5 Aces
and when you see them show up with not one card as I reach
for the pot, it's really heartening.
Of course, if they file their factum today, it will be less
heartening except we'll have another lawying Crown Attorney
on our hook. We should be so lucky as to get Lara "Bonnie"
Speirs who could try to introduce Alan Young to help the
Crown fight our case again!
Boy, won't the chortling be awesome tonight if the Crown do
not file their factum with explanation! Won't the chortling
be awesome if one of them does.
Richard, how about a report to medpot-discuss if it comes.
I'll transfer it to the world later tonight.
Finally, the constant nagging worry that Turmel's might have
a good reason not to brag about the Manitoba Kid charging in
with his Contempt Motion on short notice! DrGreenThumb, how
about a report to medpot-discuss if the Manitoba Kid files
his offence so I can transfer it to the world later tonight.
Har har har har. Har har har har.
Can't use Hitzig to resurrect law in Manitoba! Only Manitoba
Courts can't do that. Har har har har. And tomorrow, Richard
and family on cultivation tomorrow and Hitzig didn't
resurrect no low on cultivation, only possession. 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
|
|
