Trio's pot case nixed, TO Sun
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/MedPot/message/1228
Pierre Champagne
Bruce Ryan
James Wallace

Ed Martin marijuana charge withdrawn
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/MedPot/message/1241

Sandy Kramer fifth marijuana charged withdrawn!
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/MedPot/message/1244

Derek Francisco charges dropped, medpot returned!!
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/MedPot/message/2126
Wife charges withdrawn

Marc Beaudoin in Lindsay
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/MedPot/message/2202

Crown staying Seegobin medpot charges to duck Krieger App.
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/MedPot/message/2215
Rudy Seegobin

Randy Post medpot charges withdrawn
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/MedPot/message/2252

Joel Bollers
I didn't even do a story on Joel's POLCOA prohibition win!

Ken Surgent marijuana charges withdrawn precedent in Windsor
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/MedPot/message/2504

Finally, there are the withdrawals due to POLCOA threat and
reduced plea bargain:

Grower Richard Johnson gets 6 months probation
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/MedPot/message/1927
wife charge withdrawn
daughter charge withdrawn

Nielsens end case with return of their property
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/MedPot/message/2072
Laurie Nielsen charge withdrawn
Danielle Neilsen charge withdrawn

Dominic Gravel (early 2005)
He had spent almost a year in pre-trial custody for one of the
biggest grow-op busts in Quebec. After half a dozen hearings
where the courts kept insisting his S.601 "unknown to law" motion
needed constitutional notice until a judge finally admitted he
didn't, then the Crown offered him a plea bargain that let him
out in just a few weeks or months. Pretty impressive to have such
an arch-criminal released for so little more time.

So, 16 people had their charges withdrawn and 3 had a plea
bargain so the Crown could avoid arguing the POLCOA.

And of course, since the Sfetkopoulos decision and the Crown Sean
Gaudet's Goodie, POLCOA is even stronger.

Jct: I guess the university had prepared in case their crooked
research got exposed
by having a Pro-Vice Chancellor to defend their scientific vices:

> Statement from Professor Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research
> There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates peer-reviewed
publications
> by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related
> climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific
> investigation and interpretation.

Jct: Hiding the truth is lying, cheating. Destroying evidence?
Must be how things are done at this corrupt university.


> CRU’s peer-reviewed publications are
> consistent with, and have contributed to, the overwhelming scientific
> consensus that the climate is being strongly influenced by human
> activity.

Jct: Still willing to lie.

> there is a broad scientific consensus that the Earth will continue to warm,
> with attendant changes in the climate, for the foreseeable future.

Jct: A broad consensus among those from whom they hid the decline!
"Look, they remain fooled, so it must be true!"

> Respected international research groups, using other data sets, have come
to the same conclusion.

Jct: None of your crew are respected any more, except among
yourselves,
doing peer review about yourselves. No shame at such corrupttion.

> The University of East Anglia and CRU are committed to scientific
> integrity, open debate and enhancing understanding.

Jct: Har har har. Stating the opposite of the truth is no alibi.

> This includes a commitment to the international peer-review system

Jct: Which is now know has been exposed as completely corrupted.
Har har, relying on corrupted peers for help.

> It is this tried and tested system which has underpinned the assessments
> of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Jct: Yes, tried and tested to be crooked.

>  It is through that process that we can engage in respectful
> and informed debate with scientists whose analyses appear not to be
> consistent with the current overwhelming consensus on climate change

Jct: Don't you just love seeing a "Vice-Chacellor" blowing his
reputation forever!

> The publication of a selection of stolen data... faced with difficult
circumstances
> related to a criminal breach of our security systems and our concern to
> protect colleagues from the more extreme behaviour of some who have
> responded in irrational and unpleasant ways

Jct: Yes, people who have been lied to may react in unpleasant but not
irrational ways.

> There has been understandable interest in the progress and outcome of
> the numerous requests under information legislation for large numbers
> of the data series held by CRU.

Jct: And even more interest in why the numerous requests were denied,
the only possible reason the data isn't proudly displayed can only be
that it has been fudged.

> The University takes its responsibilities under the Freedom of Information
> Act 2000, Environmental Information Regulations 2004, and the Data
> Protection Act 1998 very seriously and has, in all cases, handled and
> responded to requests in accordance with its obligations under each
> particular piece of legislation. Where appropriate, we have consulted with the
> Information Commissioners Office and have followed their advice.

Jct: Didn't Phil Jones admit he had corrupted them into not pushing? I
guess
the Vice Chancellor didn't read that part.

> In relation to the specific requests at issue here, we have handled
> and responded to each request in a consistent manner in compliance
> with the appropriate legislation. No record has been deleted, altered,
> or otherwise dealt with in any fashion with the intent of preventing
> the disclosure of all, or any part, of the requested information.

Jct: Gee, has he forgotten their admission that the destroyed the
data?
I guess that with the evidence destroyed, we have to take his word for
it.

> Where information has not been disclosed, we have done so in
> accordance with the provisions of the relevant legislation and have so
> informed the requester.

Jct: Yes, Phil Jones did explain some of the ruses he was going to
use
to deny publishing the truth to the world.

> The Climatic Research Unit holds many data series... It is a time-consuming
> process to attempt to gain approval from these organisations to release the
data.

Jct: What a piece of bullshit. These are government-supported agencies
who don't
own the data. It is a great sounding excuse for hiding the data
though.

> experience has shown that determined and skilled people, who are
> prepared to engage in criminal activity, can sometimes hack into
> apparently secure systems.

Jct: And expose his own criminal activity. I've asked before if it is
a crime
to blow the whistle on their crimes. People who concentrate on the
legality of the leak instead of the legality of the fraud are not
doing a very
good job of covering up the fraud.

> Highly-protected government organisations around the world have also
> learned this to their cost.

Jct: These government organisations who won't reveal their data?

> We have, therefore, decided to conduct an independent review, which
> will address the issue of data security, an assessment of how we
> responded to a deluge of Freedom of Information requests, and any
> other relevant issues which the independent reviewer advises should be
> addressed.

Jct: So they're going to investigate everything about the improper
exposure
of their crime but not the crime. Har har har.
Professor Trevor Davies, East Anglia University's Pro-Vice Chancellor
is
not doing a good job convincing us their vices aren't that important.
\
Amazing they'd have a Chancellor in charge of vice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6lPvMDJNVM

Jct: It's Phil Jones, doing the dancing while he was duping the world
before getting what he deserved.

Jct: If you go to my youtube channel http://youtube.com/kingofthepaupers
you'll see that I've favorited ClimateGate Dance and done quite a few
comments on it.
It's Phil Jones, the snotty ass-hole laughing about duping the world,
who is doing the dancing and got what he deserved. Har har har har.
I've done comments all around youtube and should have favorited them
all. I might start so if you want to watch what I've been watching and
read what I've been commenting on, the best way from now on will be to
watch my channel favorites.

JCT: It's funny but James Gorham, the Crown Attorney wants to
have Parker's appeal heard in Civil Appeal Court. He's the Crown
who thinks we're wasting our time arguing that the Interpretation
Act says struck-down laws are to be deemed to repealed POLCOA
when the Ontario Court of Appeal has now said they are to be
deemed only absent until fixed by the courts:


Court of Appeal
To Huguette Thomson, Registrar

Nov 24 2009
Re: Terrance Parker v. Her Majesty The Queen

I am writing with regard to the Notice of Appeal filed by Mr.
Parker, with respect to the decision of Justice Tulloch released
Sep 30 2009. I am writing to confirm which rules of the court
should apply.

By way of backgrounds, this proceeding originated with an
application by Mr. Parker under section 24 of the CDSA for the
return of a controlled substance seized while in the possession
of Canada Post, namely marijuana. Mr. Parker asserted lawful
ownership of the controlled substance. His application was denied
when Justice Clements determined that Mr. Parker is not lawfully
entitled to possess the substance. Mr. Parker's appeal to the
Superior Court was denied by Justice Tulloch in his decision of
Sep 30 2009, which is the subject of this appeal.

I am advised by the Court's registry staff that the Notice of
Appeal was accepted for filing as a "non-inmate in-person
appeal." This implies the Court intends to process this appeal
under the Criminal Appeal Rules, SI/93-169. I suggest this appeal
is not properly characterized as a "criminal proceeding" because
at no time in this proceeding has Mr. Parker been charged with
any offence arising from his ownership of the controlled
substance. Under the circumstances, this proceeding is more
properly characterized as a "civil proceeding" for which the
Rules of Civil Procedure should apply, including the rules
relating to appeals before this Court.

Your immediate attention to this issue would be greatly
appreciated, so that the parties can move forward with the
appropriate procedural steps to be taken in the appeal.
Yours truly,
James Gorham
Counsel, Regular Law Division

JCT: So why did they put Section 24 in the Criminal Code instead
of the Civil Code. Pharmacists who want their stolen drugs back
now go to criminal court holding the pills in evidence, not civil
court that is not holding the pills. So Terry's going to filing
this response later today:

Court File No. C51187

                      COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Between:
                          Terrance Parker
                                                 Appellant-Accused
                                and
                       Her Majesty the Queen
                                              Respondent/Plaintiff
November 30 2009

Huguette Thomson
Registrar
130 Queen St. W. Toronto M5H 2N5

In his letter dated Nov 24 2009, Crown Attorney James Gorham
suggests my non-inmate in-person appeal of the decision of
Justice Tulloch in the appeal of the ruling of Justice Clements
under Section 24 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act in
the Criminal Code for the return of a controlled substance seized
while in the possession of Canada Post, marijuana, should be
dealt with as a civil proceeding, rather than the criminal
proceeding we have instituted.

With no precedents for appealing a S.24 ruling yet, Justice
Tulloch ruled that the Criminal Rules were to be followed and the
appeal proceeded under that ruling.

The only real difference is that there is no cost under the
Criminal Rules while there are costs and fees Appellant cannot
afford to pay under the Civil Rules and the Crown has in the past
prepared the Appeal Book for non-inmate self-represented
appellants under Criminal Rules which the Crown does not prepare
under civil appeals.

Does Civil Appeal Court even have jurisdiction over the
controlled substance in the possession of the police? Would
Justice Tulloch have had jurisdiction had he sat as a civil
Justice? Or was Justice Tulloch right in ordering Criminal Appeal
Rules be followed?

While I'm sure a Criminal Court of Appeal does have jurisdiction
to hand out a controlled substance under CDSA S.24 in the
Criminal Code since any lower criminal court justice has the
power under S.24 of the CDSA, I'm not sure a Civil Court of
Appeal would have that same power and wonder why there could be
any reason to switch from a criminal appeal court with "for-sure"
jurisdiction to civil appeal court with "maybe" jurisdiction.

The Crown may cross-appeal on Justice Tulloch's decision but any
decision to overrule Justice Tulloch and slip this appeal into
the civil court after losing the argument below must be made by
three judges, not the court Registrar.
_________________________________
Terrance Parker

JCT: I guess he forgot the whole mess when we tried to file the
appeal in Criminal Court and the Registrar wouldn't let us and we
had to get the judge's permission to file it as criminal even
though there were no set rules for such appeals! I don't think he
really fought it at the time, he may not have realized how he'd
want it now.

Other than to punish Terry, I wonder if they see any other
advantage to going civil?

Re: TURMEL: Global Warming Fraud opens eyes to hidden global
control
Posted by: "Marc Gauvin" gauvin@...   marc_gauvin
Nov 26, 2009, at 12:03 PM,

MG: You are wrong about being the only one to relate inflation to
debt. We also explain that the inflation is caused by debt growth

Jct: When someone incurs new debt growth in a LETS by buying
something with a new chip, there's no inflation of the other
chips, is there?

MG: and the increase in the money supply is a symptom of
inflation not the cause see: http://bibocurrency.org Marc

JCT: Since my equation for minimum inflation is the same as for
minimum involuntary unemployment, (guys knocked out of the game
lose their watch), I/(P+I), with solution I=0, nowhere is number
of chips in the game an issue, only the interest on the money
supply. So I don't worry about stuff that that's been short-
circuited. You write about it. So I do not talk about the
increase in money supply as a symptom of inflation at all. I've
never heard of inflation increasing the money supply before. Yes,
you're proposing something new.
--

Posted by: "Marc Gauvin" gauvin@...
Sat Nov 28, 2009 5:35 pm (PST)

MG: John, Please explain what happens to inflation in your
analysis when either of the following takes place:
1) Foreclosed collateral is re-introduced at a discount

JCT: After almost 30 years of theory, only once more:
Cashiers are instructed that all collateral being pledged at the
cage is treated the same, so whether it's foreclosed or new
collateral being pledged at the cashier is irrelevant because
Inflation (I/(P+I)) is a function of the "I" and "P" where only
the I positive feedback needs to be cut. The collateral has
nothing to do with it other than allowing P to be created. Some
bankers grant credit P on equivalent collateral, some grant P on
collateral several times the amount of the loan, over-
collateralized and some grant credit P, for rich friends, on no
collateral at all but their word. Why would you think inflation
is anything else than a function ruled by the I in P+I? when my
Miracle Equation says it's a function of only Principal and
Interest and controlling the interest is all we need do and run
it like poker chips, interest-free not caring how much
collateral ends up pledged at the cage, hopefully, the max.

MG: 2) The system produces new wealth to compensate for what has
been confiscated. Marc

JCT: Cashiers are instructed that new wealth being pledged at the
cage is treated the same as old foreclosed wealth being pledged
at the cage. Why would you think my cashier would treat either
piece of wealth differently? Is that what your analysis can do?
Heavy!

http://johnturmel.com/watch80.htm is my first ever banking system
analysis and my quote is:

>In Arnold Tustin's book, `The Mechanism of Economic Systems,' he
points out that: "time series methods used by economists may
introduce unstable high frequency modes that are essentially
spurious, counterfeit, false." "Methods used by engineers based
on continuous functions such as Laplace transformations are free
from this defect. The time series approach tends to obscure the
significance of the general analytical form of the solution."

Looking at your first bibocurrency equation:
Evolution of total debt:
Yk = Pk + R1k + R2k = Pk + (Ik-Xk) + (Dk-Wk)

The rest gets even more complicated. Daunting even. Why would I
bother looking at your complicated time-series method when the
control system of the positive feedback on debt banking system is
1/(s-i)! A continuous function free from all defect which
completely describes the control system and what output is
generated by an input without all your messy equations.

I've always looked for a way to explain the link between interest
and inflation to the masses that's easy for all to understand
while you've always sought to show off with a complicated way of
explaining it to only those with math degrees. And you've
succeeded in coming up with something so complicatedly daunting,
even I don't want to bother to see if the time series has caught
up to the exponential analysis of the Banking Systems Engineer.
Sure, the Laplace Transform of the problem 1/(s-i) may seem
esoteric but only you ignore the irrational imaginary s, even a
child can see that you're left with only the "i" to deal with.

Now, I know someone who'll love to check out your bibocurrency
with a fine-tooth comb. Remember that the reason the bankster moles
took over IJCCR and shut down the IJCCR@yahoogroups.com debate
between you and that Fugger Bill Ryan.

Well, that Fugger Bill Ryan has shown up at my Facebook page
looking to argue and I think I've shut that Fugger Bill Ryan down
for awhile. So I invite you to join the Sepp Hasslberger debate
"A standard for a stable currency" now going on where he cited:

>This might be of interest to you - a proposed standard for a
stable currency...
Passive "Bounded Input Bounded Output" (BIBO) Currency Standard

Now I'm taking a break on figuring out if your time series method
has achieved the perfection of the exponential output of the
control system with the Laplace Transform I used.

But I'm not going into your complicated equations when I am
perfectly satisfied with perfect poker chip model and the perfect
Laplace Transform exponential output control system.

I don't have time to look to other than my perfect model and my
no-flaw equation but I'm sure that Fugger Bill Ryan is looking to
try to find your mistakes, if any.

That Fugger Bill Ryan is going under the name Bill Fugger at the
debate. So you go ahead and try to convince that Bill Fugger Ryan
that your bibocurrency is as perfect as my poker chips too. And
no more time wasted on the original premise now that he has at
least admitted that: "All loans can't be repaid NOW," the
essential component of death from the death-gamble mort-gage
contract.

Have fun, it's gnurd time. Remember how we had fun picketing the
Bank of Canada and having their gnurds coming out to argue with
us and forever being made fun of? I'm sure Ryan's ready to keep
fighting with you even if the IJCCR cut you both off.

JCT: I got a call yesterday from an Expositor reporter on the
CRTC decision at the Supreme Court. I asked her to visit my blog
and read my last short post on what happened before the
interview. I'm sad to say she made mistakes and missed the main
point:

Brantford Expositor
Nov 27 2009 Page A4
Heather Ibbotson

JUSTICE
Turmel admits Supreme Court appeal bid over

The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed an application from
John Turmel to pursue a civil case alleging he was unfarily
ejected from a local televised all-candidates debate two years
ago. "Technically, it's over. I objected and I lost," Turmel said
on Thursday. Still, the Brantford resident who takes pride in
being a perenial losing candidate

JCT: I take pride in being a candidate, not a losing one.

in elections locally and across the province,

JCT: And the country.

plans to request reconsideration by the Supreme Court, the very
top rung on the judicial ladder. Turmel said his reconsideration
argument will be "insulting" and he expects it to be dismissed by
the court once again. "I'll file it within a week and probably
get a "no" within a week or two," he said. Turmel said he is
astounded by the judges' "incomprehension of the physics of
democracy."
He had originally complained after moderator Tim Philp ejected
him from a 2007 Rogers Television political debate, when he
failed to remove a badge and interrupted another candidate.

JCT: Two mistakes.

Philp then summoned police to remove Turmel from the room. Turmel
alleged that his removal denied him an equal share of the free-
time partisan political broadcast during an election period.
Turmel filed a complaint with the Canadian Radio-Television and
Telecommunications Commission. That complaint was dismissed after
the CRTC found that Rogers had the discretion to exclude debate
participants who did not comply with the rules and format of the
program.

JCT: Superfluous misleading qualifier.

In July, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed without
giving reasons his attempt to appeal the CRTC's ruling. Turmel
then attempted to appeal to the Supreme Court. That application
to appeal the lower court's ruling was dismissed, without costs,
last week.

JCT: So I had to write a letter to the Editor to correct her
mistakes and misrepresentation:

Turmel Crux Issue bigger than known

Letter to the Expositor Editor

Dear Sir:

Unfortunately, Heather Ibbotson's article titled "Turmel admits
Supreme Court appeal bid over" on my case against the CRTC missed
the crux issue and got a few facts wrong even though it was all
explained at my blog at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/turmel/messages

WRONG FACTS
"moderator Tim Philp ejected him when he failed to remove a badge
and interrupted another candidate. Philp then summoned police to
remove Turmel from the room."

Can I come by the Expositor with a tape of the Rogers debate and
show me removing my party button before Philp ejected me? And
once I had obeyed, of course, I could not have been interrupting
my own opening statement.

CRUX ISSUE
"the CRTC found that Rogers had the discretion to exclude debate
participants who did not comply with the rules and format of the
program."

Not. The CRTC cited the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling that
debates don't have to be shared equitably by all candidates
anymore and so Rogers had the discretion to eject me because they
had the discretion to  not invite me at all. The issue wasn't
over whether or not they had good reason to eject me for being a
jerk but whether they have power to not invite candidates at all,
non-jerks too.

Odds are, we'll see fewer and fewer debates with all of our
available choices and I think that's important enough an issue to
take pride in my efforts set it right. Too bad your reporter
didn't see what was really at stake and left people with the
impression it was whether Philp dealt a little too harshly with
someone "who did not comply with the rules and format of the
program" when it was really over the guts of our democracy.
--

JCT: Of course, I told her that the issue wasn't whether Rogers
had the discretion to exclude for non-compliance with rules, it
was whether Rogers had discretion to not invite me at all let
alone change their mind and kick me out. I even made her read my
latest blog post where I'd said:

Canada Supreme Court okays excluding candidates from TV debates

>JCT: It's official. My application for leave to appeal against
the CRTC decision to let Fuhrer Philp have the cops take me off
the debate was dismissed at the top not because he had good cause
(I showed my party badge) but because the media can exclude
anyone they wish.

JCT: And I pointed out the quote they made was misleading before
she used it directly to mislead in the same way!

>Therefore, it was within Rogers' discretion to exclude
participants from the debate who did not comply with the rules
and format set for the program.
>JCT: Notice they include the false qualifier instead of facing
the issue that it was within Rogers' discretion to exclude
participants from the debate. Period. Whether they complied with
rules or not. Candidates are excluded from televised debates on a
regular basis who didn't get the chance to comply, they were
simply excluded. So saying I was excluded because I didn't comply
when it wasn't the issue shows their weakness. Cheap shot by the
court to include this when I had already explained it...
they just included extraneous superfluous reasons to hide the
true import of the policy of power to exclude for any reason.
They officially acknowledged the media may exclude candidates for
whatever reason they wish before going on to the reasons in this
particular case that don't even matter.

JCT: So, does she have any excuse for using the same misleading
statements I pointed out why and how were misleading in my post?
Sure, she just copied what they said without thinking about what
I'd said. And now she has to suffer being corrected in public and
have it pointed out she missed the link to the main issue. As
I'll correct the court in my application for reconsideration.
Since they mentioned the superfluous (short-circuited) qualifier,
they they didn't see the big picture either. Just Turmel being
maybe too harshly ejected for being a jerk? Not important enough
for the top.

Next time, maybe she'll consult with Susan Gamble who's always so
meticulous in her reports. You know I'm a tough complicated
enigmatic character and it's not always that easy to keep abreast
of the issues but Susan Gambler is one of the best. And I've been
interviewed by hundreds of Canada's top reporters, now editors,
over the past 35 years of my public life. So for me to say
someone's meticulous, that's a compliment.

Anyway, at least Ms. Ibbotson's keyed on the court's most
objectionable words, making it look like an unimportant issue of
a jerk being maybe too harshly punished, instead of leaving the
irrelevant "compliance with rules" when uninvited candidates
don't get the chance to comply at all.

I don't think she did a hit on me, I think she was misled by the
courts own words in the very way they intended to mislead
everyone with their summary. It worked, didn't it, if they got
her to think it was an unimportant jerk violating the rules
ousted rather than anyone they don't want not invited.

What an incredible difference a useless qualifier can make in the
impression made on the public. How many times was the Crux Issue
stated in my paperwork, dozens? And they still bring up the
redundant "for violating the rules" when guys who aren't invited
don't get the chance to violate rules.

Anyway, I hope Heather learns a lesson after being used as an
example of how the court's extra needless information whose
only purpose is only to mislead has been shown to mislead her.

And then again, it could have been a hit job.

But I don't think so. No one else in Canada's going to hear about
the Supreme Court letting Rogers not invite candidates from now
on, only Brantford readers, so they could have just not run with
it. So I guess it's of local interest.

But it sure crystallized my upcoming attack on these charlatan
judges before I accept the loss of my democratic right to hear
all the candidates on my ballot, (sorry, the media stress this is
a fight for candidates to loud-mouth off for publicity and never
a fight for voters to hear everyone). The fact they threw in the
short-circuited qualifier that misled the reporter is the sleaze
I'm going to throw in their faces. If they let this stand,
they're not fit to be justices in a democracy.

Let's face it, a low-tech lawyer can't chastise low-tech judges,
but an engineer can. And if they can't see the unfairness of
saying the equitableness requirements in free time allocation
does not apply to debates, again, they don't deserve to be called
Justice in a democracy.

You know from experience that a lot of these initial rants as I
parse the document often end up in the final barrage. As the
Great Canadian Gambler, I'm an expert in fairness and if they
make me lost my right to hear all my choices to the control of
Rogers' moderators like Fuhrer Philp, this is going to the most
contemptuous-of-their-lack-of-sportsmanship as I'm
reverent-of-the-office-they-wear.

Do you know anyone else who reminds the 2003 judges, Doherty,
Goudge, Simmons JJ.A. and the Supreme Court Chief Justice
McLachlin, Binnie, others of the 10,000 Canadian known epileptics
who died for want of access to their anti-seizure marijuana
medicine who would not have died had they accepted that the law
had died when the Paker Court Only Abrogated the possession
prohibition on Terry Parker Day 2001 and Parliament Only
Legislates and they have no since so the law's still dead no
matter that the judges have told Canadians that the courts have
brought the law back alive. Imagine you're one of their kids
reading the numbers and finding out daddy or grand-daddy is
guilty of "Crimes Against  Humanity?" Not too much pride, right.
And the algebra is easy except that judges who are all lawyers
were the bottom of the algebra barrel. Har har har. And these
arithmetically challenged high-school math drop-outs are in
charge of our technical world. And the blood on their hands is no
clue of what screw-ups they've been. What do you want from the
bottom of the barrel? Having money and power only makes you float
up, it doesn't make you smell any better.

Anyway, we've seen the Supreme Court summary successfully hide
the true import of the case and that's going to be the grounds
for the reconsideration. More when I post the final document next
week.

And as usual, if anyone sees a cannon in my artillery I've
missed, I'd sure appreciate a message so I can bring it into
play. Want to have an impact on your world? Think up a way of
forcing the judges let the issue in or shaming them if they
refuse. After all, this is in the record for posterity. Of
course, I don't mean the Supreme Court Registry that can be
shoved down the memory hole as fast as George Orwell predicted
they'd be doing by 1984. I mean the Internet media.

Sure, back in the mid 1990s, I had every one of my posts all
around the world everywhere deleted by Paul Tomblin's crew who
sent out fraudulent deletes to all my posts. I complained to the
RCMP who warned them to stop and got some internet privileges
cancelled without ever responding to me. But sure, maybe they're
expecting the World Controllers to someday erase all the online
evidence of what they've done. But they're not going to get to
the disks that can each hold more than I've written in my
lifetime.

So, judges whose names are in these files, think about all the
blood on your hands if you're hoping to get into Heaven, if
you're so unlucky that there is one. And if you think the judges
who could have ended cannabis prohibition with blood on their
hands, it's dwarfed by the flood on the hands of the judges who
could have restricted Canada's banks to a pure service charge a
and abolished the interest charge in Canada's international
network of banks. A billion souls kicking Bora Laskin's soul
around in Heaven for letting them die by not listening to the
engineer specialized in banking systems who was explaining which
positive feedback loop I wanted them to cut.

If you think a judge's equation of responsibility of 4 epileptics
a day for doing nothing is bad, imagine 46,000 child deaths a day
in 1981 (UNICEF) when I asked them to allow Canadian banks to
create and lend them enough chops to survive and pay back later.

30 years worth of wasted kids souls, double that for wasted adult
souls, over a billion lost for nothing who could have been saved
to pull their own oar except that the bankers wouldn't finance
them an oar.

Anyway, other issues I deal with are genocides. This is a lack of
democracy. I have a find of away of making it funny, explaining
to a guy from Russia (we joked about their undemocracy) how we
exclude our undesired opponents in a way the courts have ruled is
still democratic.

Big loss, eh, right after the big Surgent win. Wild ride, eh?

JCT: In October 2009, Ken Surgent of Windsor was facing a
marihuana possession charge in Windsor and filed motions to
prohibit and to quash the charge on the grounds Parliament Only
Legislates, Courts Only Abrogate and the Hitzig Court of Appeal
could not resurrect the possession prohibition that had been
abrogated by the Parker Court of Appeal in 2001. POLCOA is the
only acronym I could think of for this move.

All the discussions on preparation for this defence took place at
our medpot-discuss group.

Then, on Nov 12, 2009, Ken wrote:
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/MedPot-discuss/message/15208

I was just emailed an offered a stay of proceedings. They are
scared.

4(1) CDSA - possession of marihuana - Trial November 25, 2009
Sir:
We will be directing the clerk to stay the above noted
proceedings against you pursuant to section 579(1) of the
Criminal Code. We will do so on the date scheduled for the trial
of this matter, or we can bring the matter forward for this
purpose on November 18 or 19, 2009.  Please advise us as to which
date you would like to attend court for this purpose.
Please advise us as to your intentions regarding this
application.
Ruth P. Orton-Pert
Mousseau DeLuca McPherson Prince LLP
Barristers & Solicitors
500 - 251 Goyeau Street
Windsor, Ontario N9A 6V2
Tel:  (519) 258-0615 Fax: (519) 258-6833
rorton@...

I will email them and ask them to dismiss the charge or agree not
to recommence proceedings within the one year that they can under
579(1) of the CCC. Ken
--

JCT: The next day, Nov 13, I wrote back with the Peddle ruling,
an old idea I'd noted in the http://johnturmel.com/timeline.htm
in response to a post by Noreen Evers:

Re: Stay of proceedings
> And the Crown is not to stay proceedings arbitrarily to prevent
the Court from striking down unconstitutional legislation. See
Smith, Edward Dewey at Canlii - I'm not sure of the paras. Noreen

Jct: They've been ducking POLCOA by staying or withdrawing
charges for a long time. Finally, the only real good argument Ken
could put up was from the timeline:

R. v. Peddle, [2003] O.J. No. 2096 (Ont. Prov. Ct.).
May 30 2003
JUDGE KENKEL SAYS QUASH UNKNOWN CHARGES, STAY UNFAIR
"Where an information on its face does not disclose an
offence known to law, can the Crown pre-empt a motion to
quash the information by staying the charge? In R. v. J.P.,
a decision binding on this court, Mr. Justice Rogin held
that simple possession of marihuana is no longer "an offence
known to law".
The accused/applicant has applied to this court to quash the
information alleging simple possession of marihuana. At the
same time, the Federal Crown has asked that the charge be
stayed... The Federal Crown submits that their motion to
stay the proceedings deprives this court of jurisdiction to
hear the motion to quash...
Proceedings stayed under s.579 may be recommenced without
laying a new information within one year. Thus, the accused
person remains in jeopardy of prosecution on the original
information until that period expires. The discretion of the
Crown under s.579 to intervene by directing a stay of
proceedings should not normally be interfered with by the
court. However, where the charge before the court is itself
a nullity, then in my view there is nothing to stay. It
would be wrong to keep a citizen in jeopardy of prosecution
for a period of one year on an information that does not
disclose an offence.
Conclusion: The information before the court will be quashed
as not disclosing an offence as required by s.581(1) c.c.
Hon. Justice Joseph F. Kenkel

Jct: So they should not be allowed to stay where the challenge is
the validity of the law, as herein with POLCOA. They have the
power to withdraw, always, but should not have the power to hold
a nullity over Ken's head for another year. If Ken's going to
argue anything to win, it's return of the equipment and money,
and he can try a section 24 on POLCOA if he wants, and the
withdrawal of the charge now, forever, no jeopardy left.
--

JCT: On Mon Nov 23, 2009, the Crown Attorney wrote:

Mr. Surgent:
I will withdraw the matter on November 25, 2009 rather than
directing a stay. As I indicated, the items seized (but for
marihuana and seeds) will be returned to you. You will not be
entitled to any compensation for the marihuana / seeds.
---

JCT: I wrote back:
Jct: The Surgent precedent is really appreciated. Remember,
Peddle just said that the stay was wrong but granted the unknown
to law in 2003. Peddle just told them how to do it right. You're
the precedent that made them to it right. Good for you. You
stayed focused and won everything you could. So, as usual, the
charge is withdrawn before the POLCOA motion can be heard and you
get your stuff back right away instead of a year. The first ever
withdrawal, the Surgent Precedent.
--

JCT: Then I had to correct myself:
Re: Withdraw!
> Jct: The Surgent precedent is really appreciated.
> The first ever withdrawal, the Surgent Precedent.

Jct: Actually, Derek Francisco was the first withdrawal of
charges. But he had two cards in his hand, his POLCOA card and
his new exemption card when the Crown gave up. You only had the
POLCOA card, an even more important precedent for people without
exemption cards. So it's the Francisco withdrawal precedent for
sick people and the Surgent withdrawal precedent for non-sick
people.
--

JCT: Considering the group usually has 15 or 20 post a day, I
could write:

Turmel: Waiting with bated breath for Surgent Precedent
Jct: It's true. Not one statement from anyone all day, since my
last post 20 hours ago. That's what I'd call waiting with bated
breath for the Surgent Precedent.
---

JCT: The, later that morning came the good news from Ken:

RE: [MedPot-discuss] Turmel: Waiting with bated breath for
Surgent Precedent

It's now official. I am free and I have a letter from the Crown
to pick up my stuff. Charge of possession of marijuana is
withdrawn. 2 min. and I was out of there. The Surgent Precedent

The Judge looked at me and said "That couldn't be any better for
you! Your free to go!" Ken CCLDR http://www.ccldr.net/

JCT: I wonder if the judge was Phillips or Rogin?

Regardless, Derek Francisco won withdrawal with two cards, POLCOA
and Exemption. Ken Surgent wasn't sick and won with only POLCOA.

Let that sink in. Ken's the first non-sick person to win a
withdrawal with our newest POLCOA kit. I think it's the
inclusion of the Sfetkopoulos decision that helped. What a
precedent.

Funniest of all, Terry and I had a 3-way conversation with Crown
Attorney, James Gorham, this morning. (If you don't have 3-way,
you're not as powerful as you can be.) He wants Terry's claim
under the CDSA appealed to Civil Court and I told him we'd like
to continue this Criminal Code appeal in Criminal Court. But
other than that, he said he thought we we abusing the court
system since the Court of Appeal had said POLCOA was wrong. I
pointed out I never got my 5-judge panel with jurisdiction so the
issue is not resolved. And besides, it got Ken Surgent off in
Windsor just yesterday morning! I laughed that though the higher
levels may not treat POLCOA seriously, the lower levels seem to.
He was unaware of our recent Ken's recent use of POLCOA to smash
his charges.

Another post.

Again, the import of the 1-Ace Surgent win compared to the 2-Ace
Francisco win to the non-sick is huge. And there's even the
chance it may make the news. Imagine that, an acquittal making
the news.

JCT: Climategate is the most important breakdown in global master
communications ever. I've favorited several videos at my
http://youtube.com/kingofthepaupers channel, the most fun one
called "Hide the decline," the actual words in the admission by
Professor Phil Jones of what he did: Hide the decline.

Here we have evidence of hiding the decline in global temperature
by devious academic means while arguing anthropogenic global
warming caused by humans. CO2 causing temperature rise when it's
temperature rise causing CO2 rise. Most people didn't realize how
the peer-review process could be controlled by controlling who
the peers are who get to do the reviewing to shut out
contradictory thought.

Similarly, notice no money reformer anywhere in the world but me
ever mentions that there's another possible inflation shift B
than the solely-taught "More money chasing the Goods" of
Inflation Shift A.

And these guys hid the decline for 10 years. And played dirty
while doing it. The full frailty of the whole structure of the
peer-review process has been exposed for all to see. That's how
they manufacture the historical record by only hearing from one
group while all others are deemed not worth of attention.

Much like in our Canadian electoral system. Last week, the
Supreme Court of Canada officially ruled that the media have the
right to exclude whichever candidates they wish from televised
debates. Since Canadians never hear from any but the Big Four,
and never anything from those unworthy of attention, the
consensus remains that they're all politicians are equally
incompetent.

Climategate is about as close to the greatest academic debacle as
there's ever been. Caught red-handed cooking the books on a
global issue with trillions at stake.

And think about the strings that have been exposed behind the
scenes. They controlled the United Nations structure for data
gathering, they controlled the Nobel Prize structure to up the
status of the fraud, they controlled the Oscar Prize structure to
up the status of the fraud, they use an almost president of the
United States as front-man. Wow, what hidden control necessary
for their global scam and now, because of the Internet, the whole
thing's blown up in their faces. All the king's horses and all
the king's men won't put Humpty Dumpty together again.

Imagine if someday, there's a database of emails from the
banksters who fought all efforts to free the debt slaves from the
usury yoke of oppression were hacked and we read about them
laughing about how only people who believe in Shift A inflation
that there's too much money will ever be heard and anyone
mentioning the other possibility gets whacked in their
employment, their reputation, or their their head.

Anyway, this is the very first glimpse a hidden power with global
reach that has been described so often in money reform lore in
what is a clear attempt to trick the whole world into raising oil
prices to keep use down.

And just like they have their government gremlins on the talk
boards knocking their opponents, I'd sure like to see the
database of emails of my bankster nay-sayers over all these
years. I'm sure they've been captured out there somewhere though
you won't find any of my older writings with any Google search.

I hope these academic fraudsters end up in jail with Al Gore at
the head of the gang.

JCT: It's official. My application for leave to appeal against
the CRTC decision to let Fuhrer Philp have the cops take me off
the debate was dismissed at the top not because he had good cause
(I showed my party badge) but because the media can exclude
anyone they wish.

Of course, the Supreme Court doesn't say why your application to
appeal got rejected, you have to guess. Or...

One can apply in special circumstances for a Reconsideration of
the case! I've done it before since most of the cases I deal with
are life-and-death cannabis-prohibition and usury-permission
issues but this is merely a fundamental question of democracy. So
it shouldn't be treated too importantly by this crew of judicial
incompetents.

So, they don't say why the application for leave is rejected. But
they do have to write a summary of the case!

If you go to my docket at
http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/cms-sgd/dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=33319
you'll see the side bar with links to Docket, Parties, Counsel,
Summary, Factums (mine isn't there), Webcasts for those who are
let in.

Now, the Supreme Court Judges aren't going to admit that they're
okaying candidate exclusion so I'll bet they're going to fudge up
the summary of what it was about! And their misunderstanding of
this major issue of democracy will be my ground for
reconsideration. Here goes:

http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/cms-sgd/sum-som-eng.aspx?cas=33319
SCC Case Information
Summary
33319
John C. Turmel v. Canadian Radio-Television and
Telecommunications Commission
(Federal Court) (Civil) (By Leave)

Keywords
Administrative Law.

Summary
Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the
Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch) for information purposes
only.

JCT: Of course, it is one of my three judges, Chief Justice
Beverley McLachlin, Rosalie Silberman Abella, and Marshall
Rothstein, who had to summarize what the case was
about for the registrar because they are the ones who read the
file, not the Registrar! So the Court Summary is about as close
as we're going to get to what the judges say was going on.

Communications law - Broadcasting - Debate program - Allocation
of time - Programming of a partisan political character - Whether
the election candidate's removal from the election debate
amounted to denying him an equitable share of free-time partisan
political broadcasting during an election period as required by
s. 27(4) of the BroadcastingDistribution Regulations, S.O.R./97-
555.

JCT: You'd think the election candidate's removal from the
election debate would have been of interest in a democracy. Ha!

The Applicant, Mr. Turmel, was a candidate in a 2007 Ontario
provincial election. He participated in an elections debate
program hosted by Rogers Cable Communications Inc. At some point
during or shortly after he made his opening statement, he was
removed from the set and not allowed to participate further in
the debate. According to Rogers, Mr. Turmel was removed because
he used his opening statement to take issue with the moderator
and the debate format, he refused to remove a badge despite the
fact that debate rules prohibited him from wearing promotional
material, and he interrupted the opening remarks of a fellow
candidate.

JCT: Cheap to bring in whatever reasons were used when the issue
was that they didn't even need a reason at all.

Mr. Turmel filed a complaint with the Canadian Radio-Television
and Telecommunications Commission ("CRTC") alleging his removal
amounted to denying him an equitable share of free-time partisan
political broadcast during an election period as required by s.
27(4) of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations.

The CRTC dismissed the complaint. It noted that Mr. Turmel's
request to compel Rogers to provide him with an equitable share
of time in the debate was moot given that the election had
already taken place. In any event, relying on the Ontario Court
of Appeal decision in Vezina v. Canada Broadcasting Corporation
(1993), 51 C.P.R. (3d) 192 (Ont. C.A.), the CRTC found that
Rogers did not breach the broadcasting requirements set out in s.
27(4) of the Regulations because the provision does not apply to
debate programs.

JCT: Okay, they acknowledge that the issue is whether getting
equitable time applies to debates.

Therefore, it was within Rogers' discretion to exclude
participants from the debate who did not comply with the rules
and format set for the program.

JCT: Notice they include the false qualifier instead of facing
the issue that it was within Rogers' discretion to exclude
participants from the debate. Period. Whether they complied with
rules or not. Candidates are excluded from televised debates on a
regular basis who didn't get the chance to comply, they were
simply excluded. So saying I was excluded because I didn't comply
when it wasn't the issue shows their weakness. Cheap shot by the
court to include this when I had already explained it.

Leave to appeal the decision to the Federal Court of Appeal
pursuant to s. 31(2) of the Broadcasting Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-
9, was refused. No reasons were given.

JCT: Leave to appeal against Rogers' discretion to exclude
participants from the debate was refused for no reasons.

And now these three Supremes do the same.

Okay, they didn't misrepresent the true issue, they just included
extraneous superfluous reasons to hide the true import of the
policy of power to exclude for any reason. They officially
acknowledged the media may exclude candidates for whatever reason
they wish before going on to the reasons in this particular case
that don't even matter.

So bringing up the interruption (I could not have been
interrupting because it was my opening statement) was a cheap
attempt by the court to make it sound like there was a good
reason for the police taking me away when exposing my party badge
was not.

Is this important enough to warrant approaching the Supreme Court
again? Har har har har. Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

Master Rothswine's Caravan: How bank interest causes wars

JCT: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/turmel/message/2656 is a
post called "World Social Time Credits for tsunami repair" I
posted on Mon Jan 17, 2005. In it was something new I'd never
explained before, how bankers' interest generates war! What?
Interest on money generates war? you might say? Here's how for a
second time:

David Astle's Babylonian Woe set the historical premise.
http://turmelpress.com/babyl00.htm

First of all, keep in mind that Alexander the Great was made to
wait by his local gold-bullion-broker for the loan he needed to
conquer the world. In his conquests, he was always after their
gold and slaves to pay off his loan-shark back home. When
conquerors are after gold and slaves, they're probably in debt
and making war trying to get out of out of debt or out of debt
making war trying to stay out of debt. "The Pit" is one name.

But go back a few millennia when no group had enough gold in one
pile to finance world conquest. Yet.

But you did have these huge powerful well-guarded trading
caravans traveling around buying and selling slaves with gold.

Now, if you bought something neat and signed an IOU for the gold
to get it, if you got your tribe into debt like many dictators
have done, and couldn't pay, you had to hand over all your gold
when the Master's caravan arrived or some slaves. And if you have
no slaves, the deal was that you and your kin became the slaves
they took away.

And the debt is always the principle times the interest rate. The
debt is always greater than the gold available to pay. So you
either keep handing over family when the slave-master arrives or
you get into raiding too.

Now imagine all the tribes around you are in the same
predicament. The tribal leaders all bought these neat new swords,
had a few fights and signed up for even bigger swords, all are in
debt to the global bankers and arms dealers with the only way of
getting out of debt by coming up with gold or slaves.

If your tribe is tough enough, you might prefer to raid another
tribe, grab a few of their people and use them to pay off the
traveling usury slave-master. And it pays off to united tribes so
it's always the "aliens" who are being sold into slavery at
yearly accounting period when the Master caravan arrives to claim
his due, not your kin.

Now imagine all the regions around you are in the same
predicament. They'd better organize to be able to get their
tribes into even bigger armies.

Now imagine all the nations around yours arming and having to
raid you before you can raid them to see which of you will be
able to pay the traveling slave-master at accounting time. He can
beat you both up but would rather let you fight it out among
yourselves.

The name of the usury mort-gage game is death-gamble. They all
borrowed 10 pieces of gold and made the impossible contract to
all pay back 11 pieces of gold forgetting "Gold has no babies"
and human slaves was the only other currency.

So, throughout all history, they raid you and yours to pay their
impossible debts to the money-lenders and you raid them and
theirs to pay your impossible to the same guys.

Everywhere, bubbling up is the never-ending demand for more gold
or slaves. Never peace. Never strong enough because you need
slavery to cope with your own debts. If you ain't the buyer,
you're the sale. Always barbarians on the outside raiding to get
get in. Always. Throughout all recorded human history. The
impulse to war and slavery for no apparent reason. Even Alexander
the Great really didn't want to destroy everything. He just
wanted the deeds to the property so he could mortgage more money
for an even bigger army. Why eternal war for no apparent reason?
Because the reason is only apparent in the account books of the
usury money- lender. Just like today.

Imagine what kind of organization could do this, pit each tribe
at each other's throats forever. Some think such degenerate
thinking must be alien but I firmly hope our world's
international bankers are simply degenerate humans. Or we're in
real trouble if the usury system is galactic. But it sure paid
off for the money-lenders despite the carcasses of their slaves.

Imagine them still doing it to us today!!!!

Now appreciate that all the great Buddhist, Hebrew, Christian,
Muslim preachers all denounced usury, interest on something that
has no babies.

Now appreciate that global banksters were global even if they've
erased the recorded evidence of that. The same weights for gold
were used from China to Britain 5000 years ago. The gold slave-
traders were doing the usury scam 5000 years ago. And thus the
constant need for war, to raid or be raided, to pay debts
impossible for everyone by the usury trick.

So accept that in ancient times,the global loan-sharks had almost
every village in the world tied up in debt chains. Those in debt
could not resist and those with cash held the chains could never
give their usury up.

But it was constant combat for freedom or pillage. Go read
ancient Egyptian history. It was the constant fending off of
encroachments by barbarians, constant raids of pillage and
conquest.

And when the bankers really wanted to make easy foreclosure
pickings, they'd put large parts of their to the sword by pooling
their gold and financing an Alexander the Great.
Alexander The Great -- Debtor. Har har har har.

JCT: Not enough people realize how the mort-gage death-gamble
contract causes war between borrowers. The loansharks have been
doing it to us since people could sign X on the dotted line.

Anyway, I hope it reinforces how no other reform of any other
problem can hope to succeed while money continues to be operated
with interest instead of a service charge which does not generate
death-gamble. See http://johnturmel.com/bankmath.htm

Luckily, with Africa trading with mobile-phone minutes, Arabia
trading with phone cards, with Hours being traded in Ithaca, with
Greencredits being traded in LETS, the banks get no interest. And
the silent movement to cut the middleman out of the usury is
spreading with the spread of cell-phone technology. I always used
to tell the courts, http://johnturmel.com/scc3.htm how there were
two solutions to the Miracle Equation (algebra has one,
exponential functions have two), the software "let interest=0"
and the hardware "let time=0" solutions. See bankmath again.

With Facebook, Twitter, Graigslist, offering social currencies to
their databases, and every other social database soon too, with
large governments doing inter-national barter deals, the use of
these new self-created social credits all around the world is
undergoing unheralded growth.
But the common use of interest-free human-time-based currency is
key. When the local currency is pegged to the Time Standard of
Money (how many dollars per hour of volunteer labor, children
too) Hours earned locally can be intertraded with other timebanks
globally! In 1999, I paid for 39/40 nights in Europe with an IOU
for a night back in Canada worth 5 Hours. You can too. U.N.
Millennium Declaration UNILETS Resolution C6 to governments is
for a time-based currency to restructure the global financial
architecture.

Anyway, how you can imagine my loathing for the parasite usurers
who trick humans into a fight to the death so they can make them
slaves. You'd almost think they were an alien species, not human.
Lots of people already think the people in charge aren't human. I
really don't believe in outer space aliens because, how could
they have made it here with usury wrecking their civilization as
it is wrecking ours?

But what if it's a genetic mutation? What if there's a gene that
can be turned on to make you so greedy a pig that you hog
everything, even what you don't need, until everyone around
starts to die off. I call it the Rothswine gene in honor of the
family who evidence more control over humanity with money in the
past 250 years than any other. So if you're such a pig as to hog
all the resources until people around die off, you've got the
Rothswine gene. The real problem is if the mutation, the ability
to ignore that your Rothswinish ways are causing all the
extinctions around you, is genetic or environmental. Can the
chance at global greed give you the Rothswine gene to pass on to
your kids. Because, let's face it, most of the leading
Rothschilds have the gene but there are hints that not all do.
The leading Rockefellers must have it, Bill Gates too. To sit on
50 billion worth of resources all for himself shows a hoggishness
that someone like me, a almost-broke living-off-the-land, never-
be-rich pauper, is proud to boast I probably don't have.

I don't think there's any Rothswine gene in me. Anyway, the
family still has power to save the planet and so, deserve our
condemnation for the lousy job of running the planet they've done
so far. Glad to see technology putting them out of business. And
lucky for them, I'm in favor of Global Aspirin, ASA, for all:
Amnesty, Security, Anonymity. I'll have a lot less difficulty
forgiving the butchers and torturers with amnesty than forgiving
the banksters who financed them.

Aaaaaaahhhhhhhhh. That felt therapeutic. I just had to vent at
people who hogged more than they needed while the world didn't
have enough.

http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2182563

Perennial election loser plays his cards right at city casino
Posted By SUSAN GAMBLE

Nov 19 2009

John Turmel is known as the perennial losing candidate for mayor, MP
and MPP locally and across Canada.

But the man wears other hats.

He's a professional gambler, former casino owner and operator, card-
counter, accordion player and poet.

And, by his reckoning, Turmel is also the world's best limits hold 'em
poker player, earning a "luxurious" living at the game by playing full-
time at the Brantford casino, which is marking its 10th anniversary
this week.

Card-counters, such as Turmel, aren't welcome at games such as
roulette or blackjack, but casinos tolerate them just fine when it
comes to poker because players win from each other while the house
gets a set amount from the game.

For six years, Turmel has toiled in comfort at the casino. He knows
everyone and everyone knows him.

"Brantford's casino is a wonderful little place," he says. "Good
restaurant, the staff at the tables are competent and people are
nice.

"It's probably the top limit hold 'em casino in Canada and the only
place you can bet a black chip (valued at $100) at poker, so it's the
highest action in the land."

While the resort casinos in Windsor, Niagara and Rama operate like
their U. S. counterpoints with complimentary meals and drinks for
players, the smaller casinos that were dubbed "charity" casinos at
first, didn't play that way.

But, a few years ago, the Brantford casino began crediting regular
patrons with meal money so Turmel also can eat on the house.

While other casinos fell into the no-limit poker rage of a few years
ago, Brantford didn't and it was a move that helped it carve out a
niche market, says the gambler.

Advertisement


"In limit poker you get far more competent, successful amateurs. No-
limit poker grabbed the attention but the bad players get crushed out
too soon there. I don't need to win $10,000 one night and lose $5,000
the next.

With limits, even a bad player can play for hours and, even losing at
a steady rate, can walk away with his or her shirt.

"It's the smallness of it that makes it successful," says Turmel.

"In Brantford, it costs $10 an hour to play, whereas in Montreal it
costs $32 an hour. You can go to Brantford anytime and you're going to
find a crew of small winners that keep playing. It epitomizes how to
run a poker casino."

Currently, the casino's poker room has 11 tables that can seat 10
players at a time and it's expanding as part of a huge $37-million
renovation. That includes three more poker tables and a more
comfortable poker room for the players.

General manager Grant Darling says the Brantford casino has captured
the provincial market when it comes to limit poker and was ahead of
the curve in offering the game before it became really hot.

Turmel is just one of the casino's regulars.

He figures there are about 10 more guys like him making a living
there. Add in another 100 people who are making a small profit,
several hundred more who are losing a couple of hundred bucks a week
but enjoying the game and then about 12 "super-losers."

"But they don't last long."

Turmel's an engineer. He describes his poker system in YouTube
postings from TajProfessor and KingofthePaupers. It involves knowing
exactly how much is in the pot at all times, and making hundreds of
bets based on well-established odds.

"It's a very precise system. I'm very rarely surprised. It's like
picking a winning stock that only goes up a little at a time."

Turmel says that his win rate is 150% to 175% higher than
professionals whose work has been documented over the years and has
remained the same for 20 years.

"I make enough to pay my bills, take care of my momma and be happy. I
do four (accordion) concerts around the city each month. It's a
wonderful existence."

There's only one fly in the ointment.

Turmel says the casino needs to offer regular patrons safety deposit
boxes for cash and valuables. Some regulars would love to use them to
store their cash, he says.

"They make me walk around with a couple of grand in my pockets some
nights. Someone is going to get mugged there one day."

There are no plans for security boxes for players in the casino
renovation project, says OLG spokesman Don Pister.

Turmel says all the U. S. casinos offer such amenities but Pister says
none of the other small casinos in Ontario do. The resort casinos have
security boxes in their hotel rooms.

There have been cases of muggings of people near the city's casino and
Turmel worries about that.

"Someone is going to see some guy making $4,000 to $5,000 at the table
one night and then take him going home."

Still, Turmel plans to stick with the "best action in Canada" here in
town.

"I'm thrilled that Brantford has such a beautiful casino."

Article ID# 2182563

JCT: On Mon, 11/16/09, News.Release.@...
<News.Release.@...> wrote:

> From: News.Release.@... <News.Release.@...>
> Subject: Judgments to be Rendered in Leave Applications
> Date: Monday, November 16, 2009, 9:12 AM
> OTTAWA, 2009-11-16. THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA ANNOUNCED
> TODAY THAT JUDGMENT IN THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE
> TO APPEAL WILL BE DELIVERED AT 9:45  A.M. EST ON
> THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2009. THIS LIST IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
> FROM: SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (613) 995-4330
> Note for subscribers:
> The summaries of the cases are available at http://www.scc-
csc.gc.ca
> Click on Cases and on SCC Case Information, type in the Case
Number and press Search. Click on the Case Number on the Search
Results screen, and when the docket screen  appears, click on
"Summary" which will appear in the left column. Alternatively,
click on
> http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/news_release/2009/09-11-
16.2a/09-11-16.2a.html
>
> 3. John C. Turmel v. Canadian Radio-Television and
> Telecommunications Commission (F.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)
> (33319)

Jct: We find out if political debates no longer have to give
equitable time to all candidates because of the Ontario Court of
Appeal CBC decision that lets the media exclude any candidates
they wish because debates do not have partisan political effect.
Major issue with much at stake.

http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/cms-sgd/dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=33319
My page says: All materials on application for leave submitted to
the Judges, CJ Abe Ro

Must be Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, bad news bear before
Rosie Silberman Abella, bad news bear before
Marshall Rothstein, bad news bear before

Google for John Turmel and Rothstein for an article on the Pierre
Drouin, Real Menard, John Turmel marijuana POLCOA appeals and
these are the three Supremes who let the court-resurrected law
stand:

JCT: Chief Justice McLachlin and Justice Charron and
Rothstein denied all five of our applications for leave to
appeal. Information on the steps can be found at:
http://cases-dossiers.scc-csc.gc.ca/...et_e.asp?32009
http://cases-dossiers.scc-csc.gc.ca/...et_e.asp?32010
http://cases-dossiers.scc-csc.gc.ca/...et_e.asp?32011
http://cases-dossiers.scc-csc.gc.ca/...et_e.asp?32012
http://cases-dossiers.scc-csc.gc.ca/...et_e.asp?32013

And Abella was on the Ontario Court of Appeal that let Judge
Wright expand the criminal code gaming house definition to get me
in violation of the restricted interpretation of criminal
statutes. Court-resurrected and court-created law okayed by this
Court-Trumped-Up-Charges-Okay panel.

So we have judges who allowed all sorts of legal skullduggery.
The best thing about going to the top is we get to recollect on
the dirty doings of the people we call Justice. Har har har har.

JCT: This 6-episode series is the most incredible debunking of the
swine flu scam I've seen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0JqQyl09zQ&NR=1

Because the conclusion that The System is going to poison us is so
attackable as "conspiracy theory," we can forgive her repeated
references to mainstream sources and not just internet sources.

If this doesn't scare you, nothing will.