TURMEL: Capital Punishment for Krieger Counsel and Crown?

BC726@FREENET.CARLETON.CA (JOHN TURMEL) 2005-11-11 18:39:56

>Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 05:01:36 -0800 (PST)
>From: robert963963@yahoo.ca (robert schulz)
>Subject: Capital Punishment reference in Max's case2
>To: TURMEL@ncf.ca (john turmel)

RS: I saw the messages you posted in the newsgroup. I'm glad
to know my mind is not totally mush! I have some serious
health problems and sometimes I wonder if I'm losing my mind
as well. Not yet. Not completely anyway. Let me pass this
thought by you and see what you think.

I am no lawyer and I've never argued or presented a case in
court but I wonder how appropriate it is to use an analogy
in court? I can almost visualize Crown Gwena Ozem snickering
as she rips apart a pretty good analogy.

JCT: Good examples, ahem, analogies, can't be ripped apart.
Good arguments can't be ripped apart. Good is safe to play
at all times when relevant. And sure, we could come up with
the Casino Turmel precedent where the gaming house laws re
legal "U-may-bank" Blackjack games were changed by a judge
to make them illegal again. Of course, the Crown didn't
rectify the underlying weakness to get me, they just asked
that the judge use a new definition that wasn't in the
Criminal Code but out of the dictionary. Judge Peter Wright
agreed to use the dictionary definition rather than the
Criminal Code definition and they then added the change to
the Criminal Code code done by a judge. Right in the
Martin's Criminal Code under Turmel in the gaming house
section: a judge expanded the meaning of a word to convict
formerly found-legal winnings.

But courts bringing back the death penalty in the same way
the Hitzig court says it brought back the marijuana
prohibition is the scariest possibility and the analogy for
the scariest possibility has to be useful.
RS: In her written submission Crown Gwena Ozem was pretty
adamant in her argument regarding Alberta courts not being
bound by Ontario decisions. What is she going to say about
an analogy that doesn't exist? (I am assuming that the SCC
did not find Capital Punishment cruel and unusual. Did a
lower court?)

JCT: I'm not worried about a good hypothetical analogy
though an actual factual one has to be better, yes. But
neither can be attacked because, whether in reality or
hypothetically, the evil is the same and the cure is the
same whether it be resurrecting Capital Punishment that is
offensive or the gambling house conviction that is offensive
or whatever other actual resurrection would be offensive.

The only citation I've ever found is that a province's
highest Appellate court is not bound by another province's
highest court except on the merits. Yes. For sure. But the
persuasive nature of the binding on lower courts is such
that I can't find a citation where they should not obey. If
they're all fired up ready to obey Hitzig when they did
something they can't do, strike up a new prohibition, why
are they so they hesitant to obey a court when it does
something it has the right to do, strike down a bad law?

RS: In the Burns case I referred to the SCC says something
about CP not being in accordance with Fundamental Justice,
s.7, but the degree of causal remoteness between extradition
and potential imposition of CP is too great to be called
Cruel and Unusual Punishment by the Canadian gov't, s.12.
therefore because there are so many steps between
extradition and execution the Canadian gov't's hands are
Cruel and Unusual clean.
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/2001/vol1/html/2001scr1_0283.html

JCT: That certainly provides some of the rationale behind a
repeal of the law but doesn't say who struck it down.

RS: Anyway the point is that between us we should be able to
find a case (preferably in Alberta) where a law was struck
down and the Court of Appeal striking it back up would
Offend the Conscience.

JCT: Yes, agreed.

RS: Unless everyone thinks the CP analogy is an effective
one. It certainly evokes a lot of emotion. Let me know what
you think.

JCT: Until an actual precedent is found, the best, most
offensive, analogy is still the CP.

RS: I found a reference to SCC and Capital Punishment dated
October 5, 1976 but no details. SCC online judgments only go
back to 1983.
Date: 5-Oct-1976
Supreme Court of Canada rules that death penalty not cruel
and unusual penalty; within meaning of Canadian Bill of
Rights.
http://northernblue.ca/cblog/archives/414-Capital-
Punishment-in-Canada-A-CanLine-Timeline.html

PS. is Parker2 and Hitzig2 the same case? Neilson judge kept
referring to Parker1&2.

JCT: Yes, Judge Edward in the Nielsen case was correct to
call the Hitzig decision Parker Two. Parker One successfully
asked that S.4(1) prohibition be declared invalid. Parker
Two successfully asked that the S.4(1) prohibition be
declared invalid on Terry Parker Day Aug. 1 2001 because the
MMAR failed to safety Terry Parker by July 31 2001 on time.

When the cases were consolidated, I specifically asked the
judge to name the cases in chronological order, Parker who
led first, Hitzig who were second and Turmel-Paquette who
were third and the Court of Appeal justice agreed that the
style of cause would be Parker et al (and others).

JCT: From the http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/timeline.htm
check the Carthy Order when the sought to extend the
suspension of the Lederman decision, much like the Crown
sought the O'Leary stay in Alberta's Krieger case, and
you'll see that the style of cause is "TERRANCE PARKER ET AL

http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/june/parkerM29602.htm
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/2003/2003onca10445.html

This was the style of cause in Parker II.

But if we were to win the Terry Parker Day declaration and
they were going to resurrect the law at the same time, it
would have been "Parker I" killing the law and Parker II
bringing it back to life. Who'd have noticed that it was the
Alan Young's Hitzig that asked to bring the prohibition back
to life, it would have gone down under the name of Parker II
and that would have been pretty ridiculous.

They had to erase Parker from the story so despite a judge
ordering the computer to style the cause as "Parker et al"
and the Carthy ruling still being styled that way, Justices
Doherty, Goudge and Simmons moved the "Hitzig Cross-
Appellants" to the top of the judgment over the "Parker
Appellant" so the case would be named "Hitzig et al" in the
law books, after the cross-appellants Hitzig et al, not the
appellant, Parker et al. Imagine, Parker had appealed and
Hitzig had not, Parker was called Appellant and Hitzig was
Cross-appellant dragged in by the Crown after parker
appealed. Imagine that, the title didn't headline the guy
who appealed but the guys who were dragged in by cross-
appeal! That's why it was so necessary to surreptitiously
change the heading, to hide the joke of Parker II
resurrecting what Parker I had killed. Hitzig resurrecting
what Parker I had killed isn't so funny.

>Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:23:25 +0000
>From: tsunami8972@hotmail.com (tsunami8972)
>Subject: Re: TURMEL: Cornelssen subpoenas Krieger Counsel

and Crown

>To: MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com

T: Finally you get to put these genocidal maniacs in the hot
seat. I hope you tear them to shreds and send them
whimpering away to a jail cell or something.

JCT: Sure sounds to me like they made up the story about
needing a 3-judge panel to consider evidence to remove what
a 1-judge panel can grant on the mere fact they have
appealed.

T: Imagine pinning them with the genocide of 5000+ dead
epileptics. This worked out just beautifully.

JCT: Maybe these guys have got more to fear from a court
bringing back Capital Punishment than they know. Their most
likely alibi, they're lawyers, rejects from math class. Do
you think they can comprehend that by helping deny marijuana
for an extra three years to Canada's epileptics population
that they have caused the loss of an extra 1500 epileptics a
year? You, me, most readers on this group can get the math
behind their crime but lawyers are trained experts at
forgetting reality and saying anything that might win.

T: At the present time they are probably brainstorming to
come up with new and bigger lies to support their previous
lies.

JCT: Claiming that the Court of Appeal didn't know that
O'Leary J.A.'s interlocutory Order extending the suspension
of the effect of the Action strike down of the s.7(1)
prohibition had lapsed with the appeal and did take time to
consider an application to remove a defunct stay is
humdinger enough for me.

T: You weren't kidding when you said you had come up with
something big.

JCT: Subpoenaing the two bad guys who did the Krieger
deception was just a fluke. I said that the killer card had
arrived at Max's. It gets even better!

T: I'm sure your fantastic brain is in overdrive right now
getting ready.

JCT: That's all we're doing is prepping Max to nail these
guys.

T: When you go to bed tonight tell yourself you are going to
dream about the trial and come up with some stunning new
device to get back at these killers.

JCT: The device came in the mail. Wait til Max pulls it our
from his sleeve!

T: Imagine subpoenaing them on the stand to the world court
for genocide or something or threatening at least.

JCT: They could plead ignorance at the ramifications of
their helping deny medicine to the sick and dying and I
might be tempted to believe they could have deceived
themselves in that way. After all, if lawyers can't believe
their own lies, how they can they sell them to a court? The
very best lawyers are experts at believing their own lies.

T: We have a duty in Canada under our international
agreements to try international human rights criminals. The
court is right there in Ottawa by the way.

JCT: I think our own provincial counts can take care of the
likes of these criminal attorneys. (Pun!!)

T: I do believe this is the Coup de 'grass' for the drug
prohibitionist.

JCT: Wait until you see our last Ace in the Hole. It's
pretty spectacular, that I'll promise.

T: Hopefully it will be the Coup de 'grass' for the careers
of these scumbag lawyers.

JCT: Long time coming for the two who misrepresented the
Krieger repeal of the cultivation prohibition as just a
common personal win for a sick guy.

T: Pompous fools fall very hard.

JCT: And we have to plan how to trip them up as carefully as
possible.

--
Abolitionist Slave Leader John C."The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
for UNILETS interest-free time-based currency in U.N. resolution C6
to Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel 519-753-0645 USENET: can.politics