JCT: Isn't it amazing that Brian McAllister had to go out
and be the first to use his new-found barrister powers while
the rest of Canada's lawyers sit idle?

>Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 07:36:25 -0600
>From: jgillam@... (Jim Gillam)
>Subject: [MedPot-discuss] 'Parade' of pot cases kicked out

Tuesday, June 03, 2003
Windsor Star (CN ON)
http://www.canada.com/windsor/
by Craig Pearson

CP: 'Parade' of pot cases kicked out
90 minutes, 22 dismissals

JCT: I'd hoped getting arrested smoking a joint on
Parliament Hill in possession of a life-imprisoning 7 pounds
of grass would break through the media blockade to inform
Canadians that the law was declared invalid and people
convicted under the invalid law deserve an apology.
Of course, prosecutions under the law should be dismissed
but lawyers are in charge of that game and it seems they
prefer business as usual. Except in Windsor, so it seems.

CP: The string of wide grins leaving Ontario Court No. 10
Monday afternoon hinted at the historic event inside as
Justice Micheline Rawlins dismissed 22 consecutive cases of
marijuana possession.

JCT: If this doesn't break through the media blockade,
nothing will.

CP: It was the largest wholesale dismissal of unrelated
marijuana charges in the province since judges started
tossing out cases of possession under 30 grams.

JCT: Brian's been saying that it's the media's insistence
that it only works for under 30 grams. So I wonder if he
used it for anyone with over 30 grams? Or does that battle
still need to be won?

CP: Mondays are drug-offence days in Windsor remand court,
which hears pleas and sets trial dates. But because several
lawyers planned to argue that their clients' cases should be
dropped, which is normally beyond the purview of remand
court, Rawlins agreed to hear them. Defence lawyer Brian
McAllister -- who started the trend in January when he
convinced Ontario Court Justice Douglas Phillip to dismiss
marijuana-possession charges against his 17-year-old client
-- made the initial argument Monday on behalf of another
client. He argued that since Superior Court Justice Steven
Rogin two weeks ago upheld the lower court ruling,
possessing less than 30 grams of marijuana is no longer
illegal in Ontario.

JCT: I wonder if that's what Brian said or if the reporter
is putting lawying words in his mouth. As long as they keep
saying that the Parker court only declared marijuana off the
list of banned substances for cases under 30 grams, and
expect to appear back for cases over 30 grams, I'm not out
of the woods.

CP: The Crown tried to have the cases stayed until a new
marijuana law can be implemented in Ontario, but Rawlins
agreed that possession under 30 grams is no longer illegal.

JCT: Boy, either this reporter is a repeatedly lawying or
Brian let them have the impression that it only applied to
under 30 grams. Please don't tell me he's accepting that
it's off the list for under 30 and on the list for over or
the Windsor Kid's white hat is looking a lot blacker to
someone in my shoes.

CP: In about 90 minutes, Rawlins rushed through case after
case, repeatedly reading a statement which said that the
cases are "lacking an allegation of any offence known to
law." In some cases, the accused had their marijuana-
possession charges dismissed, but still face other types of
charges. Most simply walked free. "I've never seen a parade
of people walking out of court with such big smiles on their
faces like that before," said McAllister. "This is exactly
what should happen. There's no prohibition on simple
possession of marijuana in Ontario and therefore no
offence."

JCT: Sounds like he thinks the list shows marijuana deleted
sometimes and not deleted others. I guess my only recourse
will be to ask the court to show me the list with it off for
section 4 before I ask the court to show me the list with
it now on for section 5.
Strange how my case keeps the aim on goal. If I weren't
demanding that the substance be off the list so traffickers
and growers also go free, these proceedings would leave
everyone with the impression that a "sometimes-on sometimes-
off" document could be logical. But because I can't rest
without the prohibition applying to all of us, the fight
will go on no matter who agrees with the Windsor report that
it's only for under 30 grams.

CP: McAllister predicted marijuana-possession charges will
be dismissed en masse until a new law is enacted.

JCT: Sounds like Alan Young's one-year delay of the
declaration that the Parker decision had taken effect on
Aug. 1 2001 that Parker was asking for let them get their
legislation just under the wire. What would they have done
if the Young had not worked with the Government to get the
Pitt decision that the Government's MMAR had not complied
with the ruling of the court to get them that extra year?
People would have dared smoke it in the streets and they'd
have never turned the masses back. But Alan Young's
successfully ensuring that the Parker motion to invalidate
the law did not proceed gained the the Government the year
they needed to keep everyone scared.
And 30 pieces of silver isn't even worth that much these
days.

CP: "If a person is caught with, say, two joints, I don't
think it's fair to get a criminal record," said one smiling
man who walked free Monday.
Jim Leising, director of federal prosecutions in Ontario for
the Department of Justice, confirmed Monday's proceedings
were the first time marijuana-possession charges have been
dismissed in bulk and said his office is working quickly to
have a new drug law implemented.

JCT: Notice that that part's already been done. Just last
week though they're still trying to lull abolitionists with
the protests of the prohibitionists who won't let it
through. As I've said repeatedly, and now as it's finally
been exposed, it's there now so they can move fast to
recriminalize before the masses claim their rights in the
streets. As long as the resisters are always virtually alone
in their fight in the courts, it's easy. But masses, even
small masses, doing it down at police stations and at
legislatures, demonstrating the not-impairing effects of its
intoxication, can set course that no one will derail.
Imagine if we'd had a whole year that Alan Young cost us to
turn those consenting masses into the streets. If we had had
that year to find out the same thing they found out in
Holland and elsewhere, liberty could never be reversed. But
because of our Judas of the Judiciary, the Professeur
Saboteur, we've got the new law threatening us before we
even got to realize that we are now free.
If they put their prohibitionist chains back on us in
the next few months, it will totally be Alan Young's fault
for having gone to the Parker hearing in secret
collaboration with the Attorney General's lawyer, to "ensure
that Turmel's motion to invalidate the law would not
proceed." And the only way to do that was to get the Pitt
decision that said the Government had not complied and that
the law was now dead, set aside. By an equivalent-level
judge who didn't have jurisdiction. But he convinced her to
over-stretch her jurisdiction to take away our first
judicial opinion that the Government had failed to comply
with the law.
Oh right. Alan Young did get Justice Lederman 9 months later
to ruled that the Government had not complied with the law.
Thanks a lot for the deferred victory, Cannabis Culture's
hero.

CP: "What's been happening elsewhere is the charges have
either been adjourned or stayed,"he said. "This is the first
I've heard they're just dismissed outright.

JCT: The lawyers in Ottawa are still booking trials. I guess
they don't keep up on the latest case law like non-lawyers
do. Or it's just to profitable that they can't bare telling
their clients until they find out themselves.

JCT: I just found out that Marc Emery, Alan Young's major
supporter and major suppressor of important medpot news, has
now conceded publicly that John Turmel was right when I said
that prohibition died on Terry Parker Day almost two years
ago:

>Date: Mon Jun 02 2003 09:45 PM
>From: Marc Scott Emery Prince of Pot
>Subject: Re: The end is near...

ME: If judges are really dismissing charges, then that is
BIG NEWS!

JCT: BIG NEWS is not something the Prince of Pot Rot has
covered too well recently. I have pointed out numerous
omissions that hurt sick and dying people, suppressing Terry
Parker's personally-won Pitt decision even though it made
the National Post was one big Judas move, but suppressing
Marc Paquette's personally-won exemption extensions, thus
letting over 600 exemptees who could not comply with the new
regulations to hit the wall with expiring exemptions and not
tell them those exemptions could be extended with a simple
family doctor's signature. I wonder if he's going to try to
bury this BIG NEWS too?

ME: The summer of legalization may be upon us! The new
RECRIM bill won't pass until November.

JCT: Oh, he now admits the law's been dead since some time
ago and that the new law is a recrim, not decrim, attempt.
That's what I've been saying for the past year since he
started his suppressions. Maybe he's not a narc mole, maybe
he's just a slow-learner.

ME: Can Parliament put the genie back in the bottle?! WE
have to make RECRIM die in Parliament and exercise our new
liberty with gusto (thanks, Mr. McAllister!).

JCT: But Chicken Balls is claiming, like the Government and
media, that it's only good in Ontario, not in his part of
the country. It's up to Ontarians to be daring, not up to
West Coast flock of chicken balls.

ME: I hope the mainstream media trumpets this decision!

JCT: I worry more about Cannabis Culture censoring another
important story again. One of his readers has caught on to
what I've been trying to explain to the slow-learners:

>From: Sonnenschein
>Subject: Re: The end is near...
>Date: Mon Jun 02 2003 10:50 PM

S: Marc, maybe we should just be quiet about this for
now.... Maybe its a good idea not to let anybody know its
legal till this recrim bill fails in parliament, because
thats how it looks right now (doomed to fail).. and if the
politicians get wind of the legality of pot in ontario,
that'll drive them to vote for the bill no matter how bad it
is..

JCT: Tada. The government's hidden agenda all along. But the
problem isn't that'll drive them to vote for the bill no
matter how bad it is because the politicians just got wind
of the legality of pot in ontario, it's that it will drive
them to vote for the bill because always they knew - since
I've been screaming "Terry Parker Day" in their faces since
Aug. 1 2001 - of the legality of pot in CANADA.
It's not a time to hush it so they may not find out what our
side just found out, it's time to blare it so they know we
know what everyone is going to find out.

S: I dunno,.. i'm fairly cynical about all of this...

JCT: You're not being cynical enough.

S: the politicians in ottawa clamour so much about teaching
good science in today's schools and they never use it when
making decisions, very sad state of affairs when elected
officials work on emotion

JCT: But we've discovered their hidden agenda, early. Maybe
there's still something that we can do to avert
recriminalization but keeping quiet hoping they don't know
they need their bill won't work for guys who already know
that they do.

>From: Orchidman
>Subject: Re: The end is near...
>Date: Tue Jun 03 2003 03:45 AM

O: Brian, You really are the star now. This news is
absouletly stupendous. If the police lay charges in the
future, does this lay them open to a lawsuit for false
arrest?

JCT: The better question for Brian is if everyone convicted
under this now-declared unconstitutional law deserves to
have their conviction expunged or if a conviction under an
unconstitutional law should remain on people's records.

O: I can just imagine the fun we are going to have on
Canabus Day, July 1st, here in Toronto. I think you should
load up Windsor with Americans from Detroit. The Windsor
casino never looked better.

JCT: It's supposed to impair your mental faculties but take
from the world's winningest poker players that it does not.
Though, as the cops love to say, it certainly does people
more dangerous. In my case, not to you but certainly to your
bankroll. My favorite put-down of Bill Gates-type rich dudes
who think their bankroll impresses is to inform them that
their bigger bankroll only means that it's going to take me
a while longer to break them. Who is going to keep
thinking their money is impressing me? And I'm a pauper. But
I can tailor my bankroll and play at low enough stakes for
an acceptable safety-factor and watch my bankroll double,
and double, and double, and double, until I'll break
anyone's bankroll.
There's that boastful Turmel again. Hey, it compensates for
my Guinness record that lets people call me the "World's
Biggest Loser."

O: I am concerned, though, on the implications of this
ruling on the rest of Canada. I know you disagree with me
when I say that this ruling (The Parker Ruling) is Canada
wide.

JCT: No kidding. Brian's doesn't think the reach of the
Ontario Court of Appeal in Parker, non-appealed to the
Supreme Court of Canada, now binds lower court judges in
other provinces. Well, when the Parker victory was declared
in the media in 2000, everyone said that it they did not
comply with the decision, it would strike down the law for
all of Canada. I'm sure I could even find tapes of Alan
Young saying the same thing even though he's now talking out
of the other side of his face.
But if Kid Windsor says the Parker decision doesn't apply
Canada-wide and all those people who said so before they
found out the Government would blow it were wrong, then I
certainly would like to hear why. Of course, just as I stand
unchallenged in my banking systems engineering suggestions,
I've stood unchallenged on why it's Canada wide. I've
explained many times why I think it's Canada-wide and though
I know of many who say it is not, I wasn't too worried
because none of them could explain why they disagreed with
me. So, though I'm saddened to think that Brian thinks
Parker is a lesser-than-national victory, I'm also content
to know he has never been able to say why. To contradict me,
anyway.

O: If it is not Canada wide, then how do we get it Canada
wide?

JCT: If a Province's highest court, non-appealed, isn't,
then we can't. You can't appeal into the Supreme Court of
Canada from a victorious acquittal. You can only go higher
from a conviction. So if the government doesn't appeal their
loss, then it used to be presumed that it was not overturned
and help for the whole country.
Another reason that helps. In many of my cases, I used case
law from the Court's of Appeal of other provinces that were
not appealed. They were the precedents ruling the judge. Sad
to think the theory of case law may not apply to marijuana
cases.

O: I know a few provinces have charges on hold based on
equality. This doesn't seem very strong to me. Does each
province have to fight charges through the system before the
law falls in the rest of Canada?

JCT: That would be awful stupid, wouldn't it? Which is the
reason that there's a Supreme Court of Canada if the Crown
wants to keep fighting in other jurisdictions. Had the Crown
appealed the Parker decision, sure, the Crown would then
argue in other provinces that it's being appealed. Just like
did in other provinces waiting for the Rogin decision.
Because, non-appealed, his decision would be binding on
lower courts. Since they have appealed, it's not binding
yet. But any privileges won in Ontario via the Parker
Ontario Court of Appeal decision have to be the same
privileges available to all other provinces.
So, no, the law doesn't make them do such a silly thing. And
I am right that it is Canada wide to avoid the same
problem you properly pointed out.

>From: Orchidman
>Subject: Re: The end is near...
>Date: Tue Jun 03 2003 04:48 PM

O: In stead of writing letters that just get thrown in the
garbage, make an appointment to go and visit your MP face to
face.

JCT: And if he won't take you seriously, tell him you're
going to vote for Marc-Boris St-Maurice's one-issue
Marijuana Party of Canada. That's should get him quaking in
his boots. It's actually a good idea whether you represent a
valid political threat or whether he finds opposition from a
party with a never-elected Leader-for-life and only one
issue so laughable he falls on the floor and hurts his
sides.

O: Every voter has their own MP and there are times when
they have office hours. I say if every marijuana smoker in
Canada, all the millions of us, went to see their MP there
would be no time for them to do anything else and after they
all had thousands of visits espousing the benefits of
marijuana, they might be influenced to vote in our favour.

JCT: But there's no reason to change their minds, just hire
more staff.

O: Or you might want to go in there disguised as a
prohibitionist. If every visitor promised to vote for them
and contribute $20 to their campaign fund if they vote
against the bill, they might take notice.

JCT: You're again joking about the most serious issue. It's
a deke. You're falling for a deke. Do you know what that
means. They need this new law and to keep you dulled, they have
their people to mount the opposition to it until the last
minute when it fades away and there is no real opposition
and it goes through with no fight. It's just as if you
tried to defend against me basketball. I'd come straight at
you, then make a deke to the right extending the ball as far
out in that direction as I could and when you moved with the
ball, even the man, I'd switch direction pulling the ball
back and going through no resistance to score.
All everyone hears is that the prohibitionists are all
working to oppose the bill that's going to give them what
they really want. It's an act to deke you out of opposing
the shot. Like getting Alan Young to help people in their
cases so he can sell them out at the last minute. Same
idea. They need the new prohibition. Sounding like they
don't want it is an act.
Wake up rubes, or they'll take away YOUR pot.

O: You could even come down hard on the devil weed and feed
their own ignorance. Every vote against the new law counts,
it doesn't matter how you get it.

JCT: Quit kidding yourself. You can't fool them when they're
busy fooling you. As FDR (US president Roosevelt) once said:
"Nothing in politics happens by accident. If it happens, you
can bet that it was planned that way."
The legislation to steal our 2-year-old medpot victory
before most even accepted that we had won did not happen by
accident. If the legislation to recriminalize has happened,
you can bet that it was planned that way."

O: If you tell them you will vote against them and work with
their opponents and contribute to their opponents if they
vote for the bill, they might take notice.

JCT: Yes, until you tell them it's for Marc-Boris St-Maurice
and his Rhino adviser Charlie Mackenzie and their one-issue
party and then he might take notice, but probably with a big
grin.
Of course, tell him your party is also going to create jobs
for everyone with Turmel's LETS Local Employment-Trading
Software, with or without marijuana legalization, then he'll
have a real reason to take notice because no one's laughing
at interest-free community currencies anymore, except for
Marc Emery of the BC Marijuana Party and his stooge Boris in
the federal party.

O: If there were 4 million visits, I think this could make
an impression.

JCT: You are right that all the medpot smokers would make a
potent political force. But that's the reason why the put
Emery and Boris in. To make sure people don't take a
political solution seriously. All your suggestions are
useful but not when your political champions are working for
the other side.

O: If every pot smoker invested 1 1/2 hours of time we could
win this battle.

JCT: No, as long as the political route is covered by narc
saboteurs, it's just talk that can be safely ignore.

O: There is nothing illegal or unusual about this method and
nobody can come up with any excuses. These people are
supposed to work for us. If all they ever get is a visit
from the priest, then how are they to know what we want.

JCT: Wasting their time will never work. Even if you have
the right. They're being paid to listen and throw you off.
They are the shield, the steel boot, that you can expend
your energies against but never win. Only real political
threat can move 150 Liberals who are funded by the
prohibitionist industries. You think a line-up at the door
can compete against funding from industry? Not a chance.

O: We have to train our MP's to work for us. Normal people
will not bother to visit their MP. They probably see only a
few people a week. Even a few dozen people could make quite
an impression.

JCT: Wish I could agree. But I doubt anything but the threat
from a bloc of voters can matter as much as funding.

O: If an MP feels that his voters want him to vote against
the bill, he will. We just have to get that message across
to them.

JCT: If an MP votes against the bill, the Prime Minister
doesn't sign his next nomination papers and he can't run as
a Liberal. Or get Liberal Party funding for his race. What
he feels a few voters want isn't even in consideration as
against leader's approbation and political funding. Not a
chance. And that's how the system works. That's how the men
who own the PM control the whole party. It's the way
Election Canada makes politics work in Canada. It's designed
that way.

>Subject: Why is the Media not saying its legal?
>Date: Tue Jun 03 2003 11:53 AM
>From: MPoA

MP: Why is the Media not saying that there is no marijuana
Laws?

JCT: When the only people the media controllers select to
interview are Alan Young and Alison Myrden, what do you
want, our best cards to come out? Why do you think they
stayed away from Turmel like the plague and concentrate on
anyone who would not mention the Rogin decision in every
breath? Why didn't Young and Myrden ever mention the subject
of today's great victory? The media isn't saying there is no
marijuana laws because their media moles aren't saying it.

MP: Is all the Media but Pot-TV bought, all of them? the
Radio, TV and Papers?

JCT: Marc Emery's Pot-TV is your paragon? Did they mention
Parker's Pitt victory? Did they mention the extension of
exemptions for 600 worried exemptees? And you consider
them the cream of the crop. So far, seems to be sour cream.

>From: hopefulcanadian
>Subject: Why is the Media not saying its legal?
>Date: Tue Jun 03 2003 12:23 PM

H: I have noticed that too. They are getting informed by the
cannabis community, but they are still choosing to ignore
it.

JCT: They are not being informed by the cannabis community
that they let speak on TV! Alan Young and Alison Myrden
never mentioned our big Rogin victory. Why should the
reporters who picked them to be our spokespeople?

H: I think they are afraid. That is what I picked up on from
the videographer last wednesday.

JCT: Please. Nothing in politics happens by accident. If the
media won't tell about our big cards, it's been planned that
way. Restricting interviews to the Youngs of the movement
was part of the plan. And sure, they're afraid of their
employers if they let out any truths that they weren't
supposed to.

H: We told her all about what is going on in Ontario, and we
gave her pot tv's address, we told her that this information
needed to be shared, and when the story aired, they left
most of the pot info out, and did not even give the info
out.

JCT: Giving them Pot-TV's address, the guys who never
covered Parker and Paquette may have worked against rather
than for your attempt to educate them.

H: You could tell by the anchors mannerisms, voice,
everything, that she did not approve of the story.... Not
very optimistic, but yet, I still think I can get through to
the videographer.

JCT: Sounds like professor Cammy at CFRA. He's completely
misinformed and is proud of it. It lets him worry
disapprovingly out loud without having to cite anything he
is worried about.

H: She was intrigued, and definately sees the story
potential here. She would be the first across Canada, to
blow it open. Peace and Love, Sarah

JCT: Imagine having trouble blowing open the story of the
law against possession of marijuana being dead. These noses
for news, even with their years in university studying
investigative journalism, still can't sniff out the biggest
cannabis story in the world. Could be not accidental.
They're part of the political process. Heck, they run it.
They decide who gets on political debates and who does not.
So you can bet that their lack of interest in breaking the
world's biggest drug story, that the whole law is gone in
the whole of Canada, has been planned that way.

>From: MPoA
>Date: Tue Jun 03 2003 12:48 PM
>Subject: Why is the Media not saying its legal?

MP It could be because the Media is biased, and not at all
impartial as they all "Claim" to be. If they were, we would
be hearing all over the place how Marijuana is an offence
unrecognized by law right now, that way the police
everywhere would know not to break the law and illegally
arrest someone. Yes, it looks like the Media is note being
what they claim to be...

JCT: Yes, they're in on the lawying to us too.

MP: They covered the end of ww1, ww2, etc, etc...

JCT: But not how and why they started. The point is that it
is the media's function to pass along government lies, look
like they believe it so we should too. Remember the CBC
anchor looking so convinced as he announced that the MMAR
had finally arrived to provide the first easier legal access
to medpot in the world. Years later, we learned it didn't
work. Didn't stop the cheerleading squad at the time. Watch
CNN and Fox news for the best examples, (they got a majority
of the American sheeple to believe that there were killing
Iraqis in revenge for 9-11. We know that secular Saddam
doesn't even like religious Osama "CIA Bin" Laden but
somehow, the US media got Americans to forget that.

And just imagine how the Government would have been in
disarray if Superior Court Justice Chapnik had been forced
to agree with Superior Court Justice Pitt that the
government had not complied with the Parker ruling last year
if Alan Young had not ensured the Parker motion to
invalidate the law would not proceed until Superior Court
Justice Rogin just finally ruled the same as Justice Pitt.

Alan Young bought the government the year they needed to get
the recriminalization legislation ready. Kid Windsor's
string of victories happened after they had tabled the new
prohibitions. He could have had that same string based on
the Pitt decision way back in April 2002 before they were
ready to table the new prohibitions.

So let's see if Alan's Young buying the Government that year
lets them get the new prohibition rushed in now in ways that
are planned that way but look like they happened by
accident. "Ooops, all those Liberals and Alliance MPs who
were so against the new bill decided to go along."

All in the name of protecting our children from the Reefer
Madness that a likely flood of Killer Weed will produce.

That's what's planned to happen not by accident.

Geez, I love tormenting Alan Young. Glad he lost his job.
Looks good on him. And best of all, I heard in the CBC
report that he's not even a lawyer anymore, the reason the
media keep saying Leora Shemesh argued the case and Young
only advises. Even though he keeps getting to stick his two
cents in.

Well, no more. I'm going to object to anyone who is not a
paid-up member of the bar or representing themselves
participating in our Lede

PS I could be back on UNILETS banking systems engineering
sooner than I'd hoped.

--
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 / http://www.medpot.net 613-562-0669