science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 01 Jan 2006
|Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 3:28 am Post subject:
John Turmel PROUDLY 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 "The Piss Boy" Turmel
science forum Guru
Joined: 07 May 2005
|Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:07 am Post subject:
TURMEL: Parker Crown ducks exam he said was needed
JCT: In my last report: Crown's pulls "fait accomplit"
shuffle on Parker, I mentioned how the Crown told the court
they needed time to examine Parker on his affidavit. With
the hearing for Canada's most famous court-exempted Canadian
over having his mail searched for pot by Canada Post and
getting it returned happening on Monday, Crown Chris
Leafloor still hasn't filed any papers or held the needed
documentary materials Crown Geoffrey Roy told the court
would be needed.
So it looks like they're going to try another "fait
accomplit" shuffle, make the judge bend to their demand by
walking in to say: "We're unprepared, we insist you delay,
in our respectful submission." And the judge usually has no
The Crown has only the rulings from our playing for Parker
criminal exemption with the kangaroos over in civil court.
Criminal Superior Court granted Parker an extension of the
Ontario Court of Appeal's constitutional exemption until the
government has complied with the court's ruling. Rather than
appealing that criminal ruling, Crown Lara Speirs decided to
ask Civil Superior Court to set aside the Criminal Superior
Court ruling like a Civil Superior Court "default" judgment
that a judge has given no thought to may be set aside.
Criminal law doesn't have "default judgments signed by
default." But Civil Superior Court Justice Sandra Chapnik
ruled she was setting aside the Criminal Superior Court
exemption extension granted to Parker by Criminal Superior
Court Judge Pitt.
Because criminal law doesn't have "default judgments" which
can be set aside, I knew Parker's Pitt protection was still
valid but I decide to play along with the kangaroos and
appeal Chapnik's Civil Superior Court decision to remove
Parker's Criminal Superior Court protection to the Civil
Ontario Court of Appeal. Har har har har.
And, with an appeal pending in Civil Ontario Court of
Appeal, I have Terry move ask to stay Chapnik's civil
removal of Pitt's protection pending his appeal. Justice
Feldman ruled that Parker should remain unexempted pending
his civil appeal.
So I had Parker file an Application for Leave to Appeal to
the Supreme Court of Canada to get the setting aside of his
Pitt protection stayed his leave to appeal. No dice.
Justices Gonthier Major Arbour dismissed Terry's application
for a stay of removing his protection pending his
to have the civil Feldman ruling refusing
to stay Chapnik's civil ruling setting aside Pitt's criminal
protection overturned and Parker's Pitt protection re-
instated in civil court pending his civil leave application.
Finally, the Ontario Court of Appeal panel of Justices
Doherty, Goudge and Simmons who handed down the notorious
Hitzig "resurrection Order," and R. v. Turmel "no need to
reprint the legislation because judges can remember which
written laws no longer are valid," also handed down a
decision on our civil appeal of Superior Court's civil
ruling setting aside Justice Pitt's criminal ruling as a
civil default judgment.
Of course, by then, I had already made my presentation for
Terry to them within our Big Five Appeals and they couldn't
argue Chapnik was correct because it was a "default
judgment" when there aren't any in Criminal law.
So they resorted to an even more ludicrous cop-out, that it
was proper to set a Superior Court ruling aside because
there had been improper service!! Superior Courts have the
power to dispense with service altogether and hear
applications "on short notice." Superior Courts can hear
motions "ex parte," without even having the other party
there. No improper service is possible before a Superior
Court that has decided to act. Har har har har har. There
can't be any such thing as improper service if the judge
says it's okay. Except for Justice Pitt, it seems.
So that's Terry's case. The Crown is going to try to spin
those civil kangaroo court decisions into the argument that
Parker's Pitt criminal exemption was properly removed by
civil court. All Terry can say is "civil can't apply to
So if he loses his marijuana, it will be a travesty of
justice, another in a long line so far. Of course, everyone
knows it goes north to the Court of Appeal right away.
Still, if all they want more pure delay, too bad. It's
Parker's medicine. They know where it is and where it is
going to be stored, where it always is and is always stored,
with no danger of Terry trying to hide the evidence of the
crime. They can renew the challenge any time so there is no
real reason for them to hold on to the pot pending hearing.
So it's unreasonable to deprive Parker of his medicine under
his not-yet-challenged criminal exemption pending it.
And we still haven't found out about Canada Post's policy of
searching our mail for pot. Must spread the word. And buy
shares in UPS.
The time now is Sun Jan 21, 2018 2:51 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