TURMEL: Split healthy prevention from ill relief

>Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 19:22:54 -0500
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Philpott)
>Subject: Re: TURMEL: Emery planning inteference at Supreme
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
SP: If I could add a important point that maybe no one has 
noticed, and feel it is hanging us up in courts. I have read 
the court doc's and am trying to figure out why John is 
attached to Terry's case?

JCT: The Crown tied us all to the Hitzig case so all 
the media could focus on the side-show and miss Parker's and 
my shots on goal.

SP: Terry has medical prove for the use of it. Now yes John 
is going the route of a preventative medicine which is cool, 
but with no medical evidence he should remove himself from 
Terry's group so at least we can take the first step, and 
let the ones who need it most be free...

JCT: I swear, it's not that I'm tired of guys shouting they 
thought first of every card I ever play, it's the truth to 
say that I asked myself and a friend that very same question 
just earlier today. What's to be gained by the healthy guy's 
demand for medicinal preventative doing with the already-won 
sick guy's demand for medical relief? The last time, the 
Court of Appeal used my claim to say Terry's was the same 
and dismiss them both. That's was a pretty tricky move. 

SP: the prevention and rec use, should make their group and 
attack the laws.

JCT: Do you think that because everyone thinks the sick 
getting it makes it all over forgets I've got a stake in 
this. We have an "Appeal dismissed" we can ride up to the 
next level and they have to wait for our move or give away 
leverage. The Crown and the Hitzigs got what they wanted, 
only the outsiders got dismissed. 

SP: Just calling it as I see it, and if I see this do you 
not think a judge see's this as well?
peace
Steve

JCT: It's the government that kept dragging me in with the 
Hitzig cover story. It's all in my Blog at the 
http://yahoogroups.com/group/medpot message archives. It all 
starts with the Countdown to Terry Parker Day. But once 
they'd blown their deadline, it was a whole new ball game. 

And how the Crown and the lawyers for our side worked 
together to try to scuttle the greatest medpot victory we 
had ever achieved, Pitt, will be high-lighted by our very 
present need to use it to fight off the new legislation. 
Only Pitt based his same-as-Lederman decision on different-
than-Lederman evidence. Pitt based the non-workability of 
the MMAR on the non-participation by Parker's doctor. 
Lederman based on something easier to fix without facing the 
Pitt Problem of the doctors.

Regardless of the reason Alan Young says he helped the Crown 
have the Pitt decision set aside, the fact remains that 
Justice Lederman's finding that the MMAR had failed to 
comply with the court's ruling in Parker for insecurity of 
supply came after Justice Pitt had found the same thing, 
that the MMAR had failed to comply for insecurity of 
eligibility without doctor participation. 

The point is that Pitt found the MMAR deficient in helping 
Parker, which as the Court of Appeal accepted, made the law 
invalid on Terry Parker Day and Chapnik J. had no right to 
bring back the penal sanctions on Apr 17 2002 by setting 
aside his opinion with his relief.

Justice Pitt's decision was correct, He was a judge who 
could dispense with service and who could issue relief ex 
parte. So his judgment still stands and the MMAR remains 
deficient from doctor non-participation. They bent over 
backwards to fix the Lederman Supply problem while ignoring 
the Pitt Participation problem. Without doctors, the MMAR 
has not complied with the court's ruling. That's what the 
Pitt decision is all about. Not insecurity of access by non-
supply but insecurity of access by non-doctor-compliance. 

Nevertheless, that's not the issue that's so offensive in 
the Lederman appeal. It's the court bringing the prohibition 
back to life after admitting that it had been invalid for 2 
years. 

Most everyone who have been following these reports know the 
arguments I'm going to be using in our Big Four 
Applications, other than the Extra-Special "rabbit-out-of-
the-hat" Surprise Number Five. 

So not only am I going to present the "general case" RICS 
Restricted Interpretation of Criminal Statutues for their 
increasing the scope of penal sanctions against me, I'm also 
going to include the increase from zero singularity that is 
inveighed against in Schacter. 

And I know I'd be silly not to avail myself of the work that 
has been done and make sure to cover every angle. So here's 
everyone's chance to contribute to the battle against the 
court acting above its jurisdiction. 

Of course, I could settle down and spend a few days at the 
Ottawa Law Library, which I'll probably have to do anyway if 
I include all this case law from Schacter and its associated 
precedents (I prefer simple logic equations showing good 
versus bad). 

Keep in mind that I'm the guy who warned them not to try to 
usurp their power with the very thing they did, right? 
Wasn't I the advocate in the room who told the court that 
if the law was invalid in 201, only Parliament had the power 
to bring it back? Right? None of the lawyers saw it coming. 
So I'm going to use both "Schacter precedents" and "RICS 
precedents." 

There's one thing that most of you may not be aware of but a 
unique thing happened in the Casino Turmel trial from 1993. 
Matt Sagle, an Ottawa lawyer who had learned to count cards 
at Blackjack and avidly agreed that my game did not 
contravene any of the five sections of the Criminal Code was 
permitted by the court to be my co-counsel so he could make 
the "Restricted Interpretation of Criminal Statutes" 
arguments that he felt had to be made now that Judges 
Fontana and Lennox had once previously acquitted me! 

Understand that Matt had such a great interest in 
the casino industry that once I'd been shafted, he left law 
and went into the charity casino business. He and Blackjack 
expert Jack Edmondson, expert witness at my trials, won one 
of the province's first licensed casino charities. He was 
also instrumental in getting poker authorized by submitting 
my "busted" Casino Turmel Poker rules under cover of his 
Charity to the Ontario Gaming Commission whose expert 
happened to be Ontario Provincial Police Sgt. Joe Fotia, the 
very witness who had infiltrated four of my Casino Turmel 
locations. Those Poker rules were authorized because Sgt. 
Fotia said "I liked Turmel rules." 

So all the case law for the Restricted Interpretation of 
Criminal Statutes is on transcript down at the Ottawa 
Courthouse and in my archives, maybe even on diskette, and 
it is a very congruent analogy to what this court has done 
here. The same case law should apply. 

Judges expanding, yea, even creating, criminal prohibitions 
is usurping Parliamentary prerogative. I have no choice but 
to base my RICS case against new expansion of penal 
sanctions on Matt Sagle's work and base my Schacter case 
against new creation of new penal sanctions on my medpot-
discuss group. 
 
I'm willing to add your words and research to Matt's words 
and research. But I need everything in hand fast. You never 
know what is going to trigger my filings at the Supreme Court 
of Canada. 

I'm always in a state of gestation until the last days' rush 
is triggered by outside events. If you haven't prepared it, 
it might not get in. So get moving. 

Right now, I'm telling the Crown I'm going to want an 
adjournment of my trial until after the Supreme Court of 
Canada rules. And I want to file my Big Five Applications on 
the very last 90th day. 

Not only do I not want the Crown showing up with a host of 
witnesses when I'm going to win but I don't want to find 
myself suddenly behind bars when I'm going to lose. 

The Crown, Allyson Ratsoy, thinks she's going to trial 
before a judge, no jury, on the charge that I was found to 
be in possession of under 3K of cannabis when I was found in 
possession of 3.27K on Parliament Hill. The refusal of my 
appeal trying to quash the charge and prohibit the 
prosecution offers the possibility of leave from the Supreme 
Court of Canada within 90 days. The Crown has 60 days to 
respond, add another couple of months, I'd want 6 month 
delay. 

If she wants to proceed on November 20th with the trial, 
then I have to make my move to amend the count in the 
indictment to conform with the evidence. I really really 
want that jury but I'd rather put off that fight for now.  

The point is that asking for an adjournment until a related 
appeal to the Supreme Court is resolved shouldn't be that 
hard to get. And the Crown should know that asking to wait 
for that decision is not unreasonable. And I keep the option 
of filing my Big Five Applications on the last 90th day. 

What's interesting is that they want to forge ahead, not 
only could I make a motion to ask the lowest court for an 
adjournment until the SCC rules, I would have the right to 
make an interlocutory motion for stay to the SCC until the 
SCC rules. 

So, I need the Schacter material condensed and voted on by 
the whole medpot-discuss group quickly. As a matter of fact, 
I would ask the whole medpot-discuss group to avail 
yourselves of the chat and voice features at Yahoogroups, 
since you're all members, and discuss what you want it to 
say. 

Under 
Points of Objection:  
--------------------
"The learned court erred in ruling that their fixing the 
MMAR (Marijuana Medical Access Regulations) can resurrect a 
2-year-invalid CDSA (Controlled Drugs and Substances Act) 
prohibition on the grounds that:"
A) RICS, 
B) R. v. Schacter says that:..... 
C) They didn't fix it enough if doctors still don't sign and 
the list all the deliberate impediments that they put in the 
way of exemptees becoming eligible:

1) make doctor's responsible so they won't sign,
2) need a second medical opinion, 
-) no criminal record for 10 years to grow,
-) home inspections
-) computer inspections
-) all the things that deter epileptics from applying. 

JCT: Then under 

ARGUMENTS: 
-------------------------------

B) R. v. Schacter says: 

present how your case law makes your point that the court 
over-stepped its authority. Since I'd have gone in on the 
general rule, equation, you can bet this is your chance to 
get your points in. 

As for the other cases, I think Parker's Pitt decision being 
un-set-asidable, elementary rules should suffice. Can anyone 
think of any other reasons why Pitt's opinion that the MMAR 
had not complied if Parker's doctor won't sign was not 
valid? 

Keep in mind that Superior Courts may dispense with 
service to issue instant ex parte relief, as Justice Pitt 
thought necessary to extend Parker's expiring protection 
when the Crown failed to show up. So the Court of Appeal's 
opinion that the Pitt decision was invalid because of 
service problems is silly, as if they don't know their own 
rules. If the original Court of Appeal thought it necessary 
to protect Parker, why wasn't Justice Pitt's same concern 
not the same valid reason to extend immediate ex parte 
relief? 

The issue here is never whether Pitt's decision was ex 
parte, whether service was proper, it was whether his 
decision was righteous. 

And the best way to show it's righteousness is to compare it 
to the relief that came next. The relief Alan Young worked 
for. All Terry had to do was drop the words "until the 
Government has complied with the court's ruling" and Young 
had it set up for Chapnik to grant him the same kind of 
extension Pitt did but only until the case was over. Not 
until the Government had complied. 

So you see, Alan Young's intent was never to see Terry lose 
his exemption, it was to see our side lose Pitt's opinion 
that the MMAR had failed to comply. His Hitzig people 
had to make the same case to Lederman and win an off-goal 
declaration. As Myrden stated "We're elated but it changes 
nothing." 

But holding out for the Pitt decision and not taking 
Young's Chapnik deal, now, almost 2 years later, still feels 
like the right decision. What could be stronger than Pitt's 
"until the government complies with the court's ruling" in 
our cards? 

But Young's intent was never to have Parker lose his 
protection, it was only to delete the opinion that the MMAR 
had failed. Pitt said the MMAR had failed to save the CDSA. 
But Young says Justice Chapnik took away Parker's protection 
and tried to kill him because I had made her mad. Nobody 
cared about Parker's protection but they had to cancel Pitt 
even if we didn't accept the proffered cheap substitute 
protection in return. I really didn't want to give up the 
words "until the government has complied with the court's 
ruling" without a fight no matter how much Alan Young says 
he had to help the Crown throw it away. Only being an 
officer of the court to help the Crown against Terry. 

Why'd you bother coming? 

So you never know when filing day will be triggered before 
the last day. So you've got the chance to keep an updated 
text file online. 

So I want help on the Schacter section and any other 
impediments to full MMAR access I may have forgotten.


--
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 519-756-1325 USENET: can.politics