|
TURMEL: #2 Emery planning inteference at Supreme
2003-10-15 00:37:38
JCT: Trying to inject a note of reality:
>Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 09:59:39 -0400 >From: ed2411@cogeco.ca (Ed Pearson) >Subject: RE: TURMEL: Emery planning inteference at Supreme >To: MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com EP: As all can see except JCT all matters dealt with under unconstitutional of no force and effect statutes or regulations were themselves without force and effect. Which of course includes the July 18 policy paper of HC. So as it is dead it would seem that there is no framework for Govt. Pot. JCT: I agree but how's that going to help the guy having his pictures and fingerprints taken? Sure, sue them. Always hire a lawyer and sue them. Face reality. The injustice stands for the moment till it's shot down. >Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:00:29 -0700 (PDT) >From: drgreenthumb4twenty@yahoo.com (stink weed) >Subject: Re: TURMEL: Emery planning inteference at Supreme DR: Yes john i'm sure you are right, the whole world is against you, and marc emery is co-ordinating the attack lol. JCT: He's been working with Alan Young from the start. He spike the Pitt decision. Sure they are problably some dupes in the Hitzigs but the lawyers who lanched the "misguided" motion only did it to shut out Parker's and our case. DR: I think you should try an insanity plea for your defence, it just might keep you out of jail. JCT: I guess that's your best shot. DR: I told you i did ask marc about pitt and he told me that Alan told him it would never stand up because it was ex parte and that makes sence to me because i dealt with some exparte hearings in family court. JCT: It still had to be appealed. Not set aside. And why did Alan Young show up to help the Crown. He had no role in Parker's case. He came to help the Crown. Even if the Law Professor is right and Superior Court judges can't issue ex parte judgments to protect Parker's life in urgent situations, with which I disagree, why did Young have to help the Crown. Why did the Crown have to bring Young in at all? Couldn't she have made the arguments that Superior Courts do not have the power to save people's lives without proper notice? Why was Young there? He didn't tell us what he was going to do? Why did he help the Government take away a Medpot victory? There's no way you can white-wash that crime. He had no business in Parker's case and he admitted that "I went to Parker's hearing to ensure that Turmel's' motion to invalidate the law would not proceed." And it did not proceed and we only won our Terry Parker Day declation last month instead of my winning it then. You forget, Young told everyone my asking to have the law declared invalid on Aug. 1 was misguided and now the court has told Young that his attack on the MMAR was misguided. So he interfered with the actual winning application. And you repeat the white-wash. Even if Pitt was just blind luck, why did Young have to come to court to be introduced by the Crown to have it set aside. Just keep in mind you're supporting the guy who's working with the Crown, bright boy. DR: They were never going to hold up Pitt when the government was not there to present their side. JCT: Bull. How was the Crown going to argue that Pitt's protection to Parker should be overturned. He ruled doctor non-participation meant the MMAR did not work and exercised a section 7 remedy. How were they going to overturn such a simple clear-cut logical win? More white-wash of the bad guys. But keep trying. It's good to keep reminding that every alibi they've tried so far hasn't held up. DR: As for debateing you, why would he? You have shown yourself to be prone to personal attacks and groundless accusations. I used to be one of your stxrongest supporters but every day that i read your emails the more i question your sanity. JCT: I don't have to. Saying Young was right in helping the Crown set aside Pitt because it was ex parte makes you and Emery as bad as Young. You can question my sanity, I question your good intentions. You flock around with lying sleazes and expect us to realize you're birds of a feather. DR: You fling shit at marco renda, marc emery and even Ed Pearson who, wether you want to admit it or not, gives you most of the arguments to use in court. JCT: Hey, Marco cost us the Hitzig recriminalization and is making amends. Ed cost me my Dupuis cultivation quash I was counting on and then almost blew our stay. After enough fumbles from your friends, I realize I don't need these types around. And until they've fessed up and said they're sorry, they're deserve constant reproval. You white-wash sleazes, you're one of them. DR: Ed, despite your abuse continues to stay in this group and give out free legal advice, and i for one thank him for it. The wins you have achieved in court are because of the merits of Terry's case so keep blowing your own horn all you want, but it will be a shame if he loses at the supreme court because your paranoia prevents him from letting Marc pay for some real lawyers to come up with a win that is permanent and for all of us. JCT: The wins I have achieved are because I knew what to ask for with Parker's winning cards. I went for the end of prohibition since Parker Day and got it. So I'm better than the lawyers. I've got a right to boast especially when the lawyers are busy stealing the credit despite their own misguided shots. Imagine they're stealing the credit and when I point out that they're my wins, I get accused of excessive boasting. You can bet I'm proud of having bested all the lawyers. Young and his team lost, McAllister lost. I won. Sure I had the Parker cards but Young turned them down. Har har har har. No, we don't need any more lawyers sabotaging our case like Alan Young? Financed by Young's buddy mole in the politics Marc Emery? I can finish the ob for free. After all, even Ed admits it's a transparent elementary violation of all the legal canons separating the powers of the courts from Parliament. Why do you tbink I can't make the argument. Were you so impressed by the presentations of the lawyers in the appeal and so unimpressed by mine that you feel I have to be replaced? Or are you just working with the moles? That's my bet. I've seen the technique so many times it's repetitive. Join the group, have nice chit-chat, then try to sabotage our move by urging Terry to join your buddy Judas Goat. Remember, I saw you coming from the start. DR: I don't even care if you choose to start flinging shit and insulting me too, because lately you are so full of shit if you don't excrete some you will be sure to explode. JCT: Fling shit at you? All you're doing is white-washing Alan Young's Pitt sabotage and urging us to let the traitors on the team. I think you've done a pretty good job of sullying your reputation here without my having to help much. DR: I hope Terry doesn't think that I would in any way wish him to fail because my own freedom counts on his case winning. JCT: I'm the guy who wrote the winning motion for the Parker Day Declaration. Why do you think it's so important to find someone new? Sure the court didn't like letting me win and brought in Alan Young to steal the media's attention. The point is that my application is still the one that won. With Young, the Crown and the court against me, I still won. Not Young or McAllister. Why are you looking in the losing bullpen for a new pitcher? You don't like the fact I got them to admit prohibition died on Parker day and got all the charges stayed and dismissed? Are you really unhappy I wrote the appeal that won that? DR: I believe that Marc Emery could really help him achieve that win, or i wouldn't have suggested it. JCT: What do you think we lack to win? What's a lawyer going to add that I can't do? Except a low-tech diploma. DR: I have heard him speak many times and unlike you john he sticks to the issues at hand, demands freedom for all of us and does not badmouth others in the movement. JCT: He doesn't digress to Alan Young's treason, to Emery's helping him, he sticks to the issues that aren't hot and certainly hadn't answered my indictment satisfactorily. The Crown snuck Alan Young into Parker's case to help Parker, not the Crown. How many times does the Crown have to bring Young in before you realize they wouldn't bring him in if he wasn't working for them deliberately? DR: He did not even say anything nasty about you John when i asked him what was up. He only said that he questioned your sanity, JCT: I know, it's such a handy way to avoid dealing with the real issues. Young was right. Emery was right to suppress the Pitt win and set aside, because Turmel's crazy. Har har. If that's the best you've got, again, so far. DR: when you spew garbage about him constantly, and let me tell you if i owned the magazine i would not give press to some dipshit who was constantly calling me a mole either. JCT: You may think my accusations that he hurt a lot of exemptees when he suppress the Paquette win is a lot of garbage but I can prove it. I know exemptees who read Cannabis Culture and who hit the expiry wall. Emery didn't inform of the the Paquette win. Thanks much. Garbage that Emery should have told them there was a way to extend their exemptions. Garbage that they suffered becauee of what the Cannabis Vulture did. Garbage accusations. The Dr. knows that no exemptees hit the wall. Turmel's nuts so Emery can't have sat on the Paquette win. You speak the garbage. DR: This was never about medical use for marc it has always been about personal freedom. JCT: Me too. From 1979. When did Marc start fighting for medpot in politics? DR: He has been standing against pot laws long before you got involved in the game. JCT: Long... DR: Terry has won these cases for you not the other way around, and your failure to understand that and constant attempts to keep all the glory to yourself makes me doubt your good intentions. JCT: Tell us Mr. Double Standard how Hitzig won Alan Young's case for him? Young lost the case with the Hitzigs facts and I won the case with the Parker facts. Don't try to twist what happened because you can't admit I've shown up all the shysters. It wasn't hard when most were working for the other side. DR: Terry's cases have won because he deserves to win and with a real bankroll behind him and knowledgeable lawyers like john conroy helping He would win for sure. JCT: He won with a good case and with lawyers, he could win? DR: I have noticed recently that soon after Ed makes a suggestion about a way to fight them you make a post a couple days later making the same argument, yet expect us all to believe you don't read his posts. JCT: I've gotten all my plays from the guys in the bleachers. You can't upset me by trying to make it sound like Pastor Pearson is the genius behind all this. He's gotten in the way so many times, been left answerless so many times, and constantly would shout "see, he played his hand the way I'd have played it too." What a disgusting shot, trying to imply that I get my inspirations from Ed Pearson. Oh well, if that's how it seems to you... DR: Marc has been using the internet and his magazine for years to unite the pot movement, and fund the counterculture industry. JCT: Just waiting for the chance to do the dirty deed when they had to not play up the Pitt victory. Imagine the "Epileptic wins life-time right to marijuana" had appeared in the Cannabis Culture instead of the National Post. Alan would have had his chance to explain he wanted to help the Crown correct our lucky break. DR: From head shops to hydroponic grow shops, Marc has been bringing the culture to light with great success, and it is the uniting of our people demanding our rights like all other minority groups have that will eventually force our freedom. JCT: Like and sheep-dipped narc mole would do? I don't care about his sheep-dipping record, I do care about when he helped sabotaged Parker's Pitt decision. DR: Your constant attempts to divide us will continue to hurt the cause and that is why you will never be leader of the marijuana party. JCT: I don't you and your type anywhere near me. You associate with filth and it stays with you. And I will never be leader of the Marijuana Party because Marc and Marc Boris would surely cheat me again by Emery deleting my proxy votes the night before the convention and St-Maurice cancelling the election. You're still proud of being associated with a group who cancelled their one and only election? Har har har har. You should be ashamed. You have no honor. DR: So if you want to add me to the list of people you badmouth JCT: I promise I won't badmouth you. I will point that you pass along Alan's crooked explanation about ex parte decision not counting and you don't care that it's not true, I can point out Emery never explained why he didn't cover the Parker and Paquette wins and you don't care. I can just point out that you came in chit-chatting like a nice guy and you turn out to be just like them. DR: I will consider myself in the good company of Marc Emery, Marc Paquette and Ed Pearson, all true fighters for the cause, and who i would be happy to be associated with anytime. JCT: I've always explicitly stated the dirty deeds of your buddies Marc Emery and Ed Pearson, (Paquette has no such dirty deeds). I don't just call you and your buddies sleazes and crooks, I point out the dirt you accept. It's the kind of people you are. Your buds can't answer for their dirty deeds and they're still your buds. And you're theirs. DR: Terry I wish you all the best, and you remain one of the true pot heroes in my book. JCT: You sure aren't doing him the best by advising him to find a lawying attorney to replace me. Then again, replacing a winner with a loser would be an ideal definition of sabotaging Parker's case. You did your best. Your best wasn't good enough. Now go back and play with your sleazy buds because I don't like the idea of having your kind around us. Open your mouth again, I'll keep harping how you're with the guys who set aside Pitt. You can explain how Young had good reason because of the "ex parte" nature of the order. Have fun. I just know you smell bad and it's the company you keep. Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:33:22 -0400 From: ed2411@cogeco.ca (Ed Pearson) Subject: RE: Age Limit & med pot.net was: Re: Thank you To: MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com EP: I am certain that the Ont. C.A. will allow re-argument in the Hetzig case as none of the lawyers or the Crown asked for argued or submitted that the Court do as it did. JCT: Hope Ed and Young get together. They deserve each other. EP: It is clear that there should be a clear decision on the courts jurisdiction by the C.A. so that if necessary the matter can be properly brought before the Supreme Court of Canada after full argument in the Court below. I hope that Young and Burstein do so as they have perfect grounds to seek re-argument. JCT: I wonder how he'd expect to pull of such a hearing? Non-reality sets in again. -- Abolitionist Slave Leader John C."The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel for UNILETS interest-free time-based currency in U.N. resolution C6 to Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel 519-756-1325 USENET: can.politics |
Bielizna pozycjonowanie Lębork faktoring zaliczkowy seriale |
