science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 01 Jan 2006
|Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 9:54 pm Post subject:
John Turmel drinks his own piss.
"By the way, he thinks he's shaming me while I think
he's helping spread a message many people will
eventually thank me for. I couldn't ask for a better
plug to bring this natural miraculous healer to
everyone's attention, even if from a demented
lunatic. I'm so not ashamed that I even pee a mug
full and chug it in the DVD put out last year at
http://www.turmelmovie.com so it's not as if I'm not
happy to get the message out."
John "Piss Boy" Turmel
science forum Guru
Joined: 07 May 2005
|Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 1:32 pm Post subject:
TURMEL: Noreen Evers' Appeal in B.C.
|Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 23:41:49 -0700
From: email@example.com (Noreen Evers)
Subject: Re: [MedPot-discuss] Re: Marc v. Medpot-Discuss
N: John - would you be happier if, instead of 'Emery', Marc
posted 'Marc the Narc'? He never changes the headlines of
anything. How many times has he posted things like
'marihuana is dangerous'. Same thing, different topic.
Anyways, I am glad you're both back, and, if nothing else,
at least spitting at each other.
JCT: Marc had cross-posted an article about Marc Emery and I
pointed out he should mention Marc The Narc's Emery's
betrayals lest anyone think Marc Paquette was lauding the
Cannabis Vulture who had censored the story of Paquette's
Federal Court win to cause Canada's exemptees to have their
exemptions expire without finding out Paquette had gotten
them a new form their one doctor could sign to all have
their exemptions extended. Marc's forgiven "The Narc" for
what he did but I'll never let the Prince of Rot off my
N: So, I need some information about the court process,
because I think I blew it quite a bit and the judge has
actually opened up some doors for me. Perhaps you guys could
add some comments, because you've all certainly been here
way more times than I have. I'm not really quite sure what
1. I had a hard time submitting evidence. I couldn't submit
newspaper articles - even one that had my picture on it
'because I didn't write it'. No x-examine.
JCT: Probably because it was at the wrong phase of the case
when it wasn't relevant.
N: 2. I couldn't submit Terry's or Marc's letters. (No x-
JCT: At what point in the case and how were they relevant at
N: 3. I couldn't submit any studies on the benefits. (No x-
JCT: Same questions.
N: 4. Couldn't even submit a letter from a doctor (I didn't
write it - no x-examine.)
JCT: Probably because they were not relevant to the issue in
question right then. Evidently, letters from doctors are
used relevantly by others, so it should have been possible
for you to use a letter from a doctor relevantly. The fact
you were not permitted means it wasn't relevant then.
N: I don't think I need the above, but I am just trying to
express how frustrating it was for me.
JCT: I see it all the time. People want to talk about what
they want to talk about, not what the judge wants to talk
about and hear at the moment.
N: I had a million written reasons, and supporting cases,
but at trial, I didn't 'point out' the parts in the cases.
(I was so upset, I didn't remember the 94 'dormants' either
- sorry John - pissed me off - but I will remember it for
JCT: Sounds like it was the stuff you should have introduced
in pre-plea quash and pre-trial constitutional motions but
not relevant once the validity of the prohibition is
accepted. These things to challenge the validity of the law
were perhaps introduced too late. It's been a long time
since I mentioned those very sick Canadians who had been
dormanted by Health Canada.
N: I have watched other lawyers just 'hand up caselaw' and
not necessarily refer to them.
JCT: It depends if you're discussing facts or law at that
N: I presume now, that it is important to pinpoint the lines
that you intend to use to back your argument? (I did it at
the sentencing hearing).
At COA, it says I can do arguments in writing. Does this
mean that you don't actually speak in front of the COA?
They just examine the case on your written submissions - and
then judge it?
JCT: Right. I prefer to do both. Written arguments for
posterity and a piece of my mind in person. But a shy person
may do it all in writing. Some judges ask both sides for
N: My factum can only be 30 pages - this could be tough to
fit it all in.
JCT: Actually, the purpose of the factum is to reduce all
your evidence and arguments down to the basics. How much
disagreement are there on the facts? Probably few. It's all
really a question of law since you are guilty if the law
exists and does not unconstitutionally violate your rights.
I have my published factum for "the law is dead" case
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/mpforms.htm but yours
includes much other stuff. You were dealing with the pre-
plea motion to quash, the after-plea constitutional motion,
the trial, all at the same time. Over here, I've dealt with
them one at a time in order.
1) Motion for extraordinary remedy of Prohibition because
the prohibition is already unknown to law, then appeals;
2) Pre-Plea s.601 Motion to Quash because the prohibition is
still unknown unknown to law, appeal after trial. Only after
the court has that the prohibition is now known at law once
again (without any input from Parliament), then you give
yourself up to the ordeal of the constitutional challenge.
3) Pre-trial constitutional motion because the prohibition,
if not dead, is bad with all the same arguments as used by
Terry Parker and Grant Krieger to show how the law violates
your rights. When the judge says he doesn't think it
violates your rights unduly, then you give yourself up to
the ordeal of the trial.
4) At trial, I just admitted the factual truth. You could
play lawyer and try to come up with some inane trivial
technicality to get off but I'm in it to get to the appeal.
So, since lawyers know best how to seek technicalities, at
this point, I'd let the lawyer take over.
5) Appeal quash, constitutional and conviction decisions.
N: I kind of feel like I might as well just write a 'court
judgment' like they do at the SCC. Is this the right way to
JCT: I don't know what you mean by a "court judgment" but
all you need to do as told and follow the instructions. If
you need more, you can ask. I think my general Factum on the
"law is dead" thrust is about 18 pages so I can understand
how yours dealing with everything at the same time might
But just post a draft and we'll help you do the chopping.
The time now is Wed Jun 28, 2017 10:47 am | All times are GMT
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Electronics forum |
Medicine forum |
Unix/Linux blog |
Unix/Linux documentation |
Unix/Linux forums |
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group