knowledge-database (beta)

Current group: sci.engr.

TURMEL: Reserved decision in Nielsen Quash Motion to Jan 18

TURMEL: Reserved decision in Nielsen Quash Motion to Jan 18  
John Turmel
From:John Turmel
Subject:TURMEL: Reserved decision in Nielsen Quash Motion to Jan 18
Date:11 Jan 2005 19:17:28 GMT

>Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:33:04 +0000
>From: tsunami8972@hotmail.com (tsunami8972)
>Subject: Re: TURMEL: Crown has no factum for Elliot Lake
To: MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com

T: The suspense is killing me. I'm leaving for a week in
Acapulco tomorrow morning. I guess I'll be sitting in the
internet cafe next to the Zocalo a lot while I'm there. I
certainly can't miss the end of prohibition. I'll smoke a
joint of fine Oaxacan sativa to celebrate.

The World Social Forum sounds good. Here is a card:

In Haiti last fall there were huge huricanes and because of
the poverty the people have stripped the land of all
vegetation for firewood. The denuded land is then very prone
to flooding. When the huricanes came the floods killed
thousands of people. All they have to do is plant the land
with huge sativas that can grow to 20 feet in a season and
let them go to seed. Where there used to be jungles let
there be marijuana jungles. Just let it grow wild. The UN
spends millions in Haiti every year when all they have to do
is grow weed. I imagine Haiti could grow fantastic weed.
No flooding, Firewood, Food, Oil, No erosion, better air,
fibre for clothing, medicine, euphoriant, more tourists etc

JCT: Check out my poem on my home page at
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/medpot.htm and you'll see
I'll have this in mind when I reach the UN again. But it is
time to add un-prohibiting the Tree of Life to The
Engineer's World Social Forum agenda.

>Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 12:10:50 +0000
>From: tsunami8972@hotmail.com (tsunami8972)
>Subject: TURMEL: Last day for Crown to duck Factum contempt
>To: MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com

"suzanne johnson" wrote:
Quote: 4. A history of the state of the law as it relates to
cannabis marihuana possession and lawful accessibility to
cannabis marihuana for medical/therapeutic purposes is
outlined in R.v. Stavert 179 C.C.C. (3d) 117. Quote

T: Don't change the subject. When they don't have an answer
to section 7 they talk about section 4. When they don't have
an answer to the CDSA they talk about the MMAR.

JCT: Richard and Sue are pretty focused by now. And they
have their answers before going in. I think the Crown's in
for a rough ride.

T: Does Stavert have any bearing? It basically followed
Hitzig which turned into a flop. None of it can over-rule
KrIEger. Section 4 is not section 7. Section 4 is not
section 7. Section 4 is not section 7. Watch the watch.
Section 4 is not section 7..

JCT: I know, surprise! Krieger is a surprise isn't it? And
this is the first time the S.7 Krieger card has ever being
played at a S.7 cultivation charge.

"c) A Motion which seeks to declare "unconstitutional and
of no force and effect" must be brought before the Court in
accordance with the rule 26 of the rules of the Ontario
Court of Justice in Criminal Proceedings."

T: You are not seeking this. It has already been declared of
no force and effect twice.

JCT: I know, and the Crowns who oppose us keep forgetting
and repeating the same thing!

"5. The Medical Marihuana Access Regulations provide for
exceptions relating to Possession of Marihuana and in some
cases for Cultivation of Marihuana for medical purposes.
The Applicants do not have an "Authorization to Possess"
nor do they have a "Personal Use Production Licence""

T: Why would you need these if the law has been struck down
by Krieger.

JCT: My sentiments exactly.

T: What a nasty mind trick coming to the door at 11:57pm.
They may as well have not bothered. I don't see anything to
substantiate their claims of the miracle of re-birth.

JCT: I'm sure it was nothing to do with malice and more to
do with finding out what happened with the charge of the
Manitoba Kid earlier in the morning.

T: How did they dispute the fact that the court does not
have the authority to re-enact the law once it has been
declared unconstitutional?

JCT: They haven't. They'll just claim they can because they
did. We've heard that before.

T: They skipped a lot of important points and tried to
change the subject. I find their factum useless toilet
paper.

JCT: Let's hope the judge thinks so too.

T: Who signed the factum should be the next one to be on the
cite for contempt hit list.

JCT: That's Roland Aube.

Anyway, just heard that the Crown's motion to dismiss the
application to quash was refused and the judge reserved her
decision on it until next Tuesday Jan 18.

Despite the Crown's objection, the judge granted the
audiotaping by the self-represented Applicants. They're home
how right now beavering away at the transcript and adding
their comments for publication to medpot-discuss later
tonight.

I'll then add my comments and publish world-wide later.

A think a reserved decision coming up in one week helps the
Nielsens in Brantford on Friday. Wonderful pressure for a


--
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
   

Copyright © 2006 knowledge-database   -   All rights reserved