 |
JCT: Weird things are being reported:
>Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 04:38:24 +0000
>From: budweedluv@yahoo.ca ("Bud E. Luv")
>Subject: [MedPot-discuss] North Bay update
>To: MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com
B: I spoke to the Rev today and made a post about it at the
medpot.net/forums.
http://www.medpot.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=14702
Wow..... Spoke to Rev today..................and I can't
$@$!^%!@ believe what he was telling me.
I will try to make clarity of this while I type....but I'm
still astounded at what our good friend was telling me.
When the Rev went to court, he had more than just one motion
that was to be addressed. I won't list all of them, but he
was there to with a motion to quash, a writ of habeas
corpus, etc...
The judge dismissed ALL of them!
JCT: Did the judge dismiss Krieger? That was the whole
story. "The judge bought Parker and Krieger." Everybody
bought Parker 2 years ago after the Windsor decision. The
news was "the judge bought Krieger." How does the judge buy
Krieger and not quash the S.7 cultivation charge?
B: When speaking to the matter of quashing on the grounds of
NO LAW, he spoke of the fact that yes, possession and
cultivation HAD BEEN DEEMED TO BE OF NO FORCE AND EFFECT!!!!
JCT: If there's a transcript, then it's the first admission
that Krieger killed S.7 cultivation.
B: However, he had no case law before him that indicated
possession for the purpose had been striken as well and
cited that as his reason for dismissal of the motion.
JCT: As a matter of fact, the Crown have been readied with
the Ontario Court of Appeal Turmel loss that Section 5 had
not been struck down not being appealed in #30571.
B: The Rev spoke to a lawyer friend who obtained a copy of
the written endorsement and it contained NO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
OF WHAT JUDGE VALIN SAID IN COURT!!
JCT: It doesn't matter. If the judge said it, why didn't he
quash the charge?
B: The lawyer also informed him that someone in Elliot Lake
had already requested the transcripts.
JCT: We only heard on Monday night about the Friday decision
so we didn't have a chance to get any photocopy of the
endorsement. Elliot Lake may have put a rush on those
transcripts and they'll be available sooner than we think.
B: I think this is great, but we might be in for a surprise
that we will not like. The transcripts won't contain this
statement made by Judge Valin.
JCT: Of course they will. If he quashed the charge, it will
be there even if not mentioned on the endorsement.
B: This is something that the Rev has almost guaranteed as
he confirmed with his lawyer friend who has seen many
transcripts that have been edited by either adding or
deleting portions in the transcripts which the stenographer
has typed out after listening to the tape.
JCT: Give me a break. What kind of bull-shit is predicting a
crooked transcript. How you anyone be so sure the judge's
words won't be there? With all the calls about it, I doubt
anyone would dare tamper with the stenographic notes of
something so controversial? If he said it, it will be there
to back up his buying Parker and Krieger.
B: I have NEVER heard of transcripts being altered before.
Can anyone else confirm?
JCT: Neither have I. Perhaps little things but never
anything anything substantive.
B: What an absolute sham by the judiciary!
JCT: The jury is still out on that. If the endorsement says
"S.4 and S.7 are quashed" and the reasons say "Looks to me
like S.4 and S.7 are invalid but you still face S.5," what
more could you want?
B: When Judge Valin rendered the decision orally in Court,
he wrote what he adjudicated on the back of the motion.
JCT: That's the endorsement. It should say "Counts dealing
with S.4 and S.7 are quashed." The reasons should be in the
transcript that's been ordered.
B: Some judges write on the back, some on the inside of the
cover (like mine was), sign their name to it and file it.
JCT: I've never seen it started anywhere but on the back
cover. Then carry over to the inside.
B: The motions that the Rev presented were on lined paper
with the style of cause on the back. The Rev first saw the
endorsed written decision as given by Judge Valin orally
when the Rev was before him on the issue of habeas corpus.
No problem. It was on the back of his motion which showed
the File # 041656, style of cause, etc....
The Rev was shown the written endorsed decision by the judge
where he acknowledged possession and cultivation to be of no
force and effect.....
JCT: Well, if he added a short reason to his quash
endorsment, then there really is reason to celebrate 1-page
Ace.
B: The written endorsement was on BLANK paper, did not show
the file #, style of cause, etc.... and DID NOT CONTAIN THE
ACKNOWLEDGMENT!!!!
Please remember, this was a "statement" made by Judge Valin
on two laws, (CDSA Sections 4 & 7) that were not before him
to adjudicate upon.
JCT: At no point did we ever know that S.4 and S.7 were not
before the judge. That would have been real handy to know.
We were all left with the impression that they had been
quashed and only the S.5 charges remained. Now we find out
it's only an opinion, not an order, and everyone expects
that the judge is going to hide it now.
B: It was a statement. An acknowledgement that the Crown and
the Judiciary are now trying desperately to hide!!!
JCT: It's a far cry from a quash but it the Krieger decision
is cited as the cause of the invalidity of the cultivation
S.7 count, then it is always the first Krieger card
validation. The first time anyone accepted that Krieger
invalidated cultivation. Remember, as far as Canadian know,
it's still the Calgary Press spin that it was a purely
personal win for Krieger and not a win for all of us. No
media in Canada have corrected the Calgary spin yet so
getting any judge to accept Krieger is real news no matter
if suppressed.
So now we only need to get the transcript of the judge's
opinion on Krieger to use in all upcoming cases.
B: I am asking for feedback concerning the following
issue....
~~~~How can we get our hands on the tape recording in that
court sitting when the Rev was spoken to?~~~~
JCT: When Mike is called, he reads out Section 136,
points out the judge has say on manner, not on taping, and
could his friend pass it over to him so he can turn it on or
could his friend sit up front and run it for him? Why would
the judge say no? How more reasonable a way to do it? Just
be prepared for good luck, don't miss the chance worried
about the bad. Ask Richard Johnson, I'd bet his tape of his
day in combat will end up one of the most satisfying
mementoes of his life. Everyone should have one.
B: Rev Mike has no problems with swearing to an affidavit
what the condition and appearance of his motions were in,
but more importantly, he will swear to an affidavit
concerning the oral judgment/acknowledgement that he was
given on that day.
JCT: Why is everyone presuming the judge is going to sign
off on a crooked transcript?
B: The only other manner that we can get this
acknowledgement is by requesting the actual taped recording
the Court has of that day.
JCT: Why is everyone planning another way other than the
"crooked" transcript? Why is everyone so so sure the words
won't be there?
B: This in my opinion is the Crown on damage control, like
they've been for years. It just seems to be getting
completely out of hand now. Any comments and feedback are
appreciated. Peace
JCT: I don't know how much help it could have been to the
Johnsons in Elliot Lake the next day. If the quash were on
the endorsement, it would have been invaluable. Now that we
know that there weren't any S.4 and S.7 charges for the
judge to buy Parker and Krieger, it weakens the impact there
could have been on Judge Serre in Elliot Lake.
Of course, Superior Judge Valin's opinion would be almost
binding on her so if we find it, it's game over for the
Johnson charges since they are S.4 and S.7.
How can Tarzan not have any S.4 charge to quash?
>Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:22:18 +0000
>From: buds_4_life@rogers.com (doug_laurie_nielsen)
>Subject: [MedPot-discuss] Re: North Bay update
--- "Bud E. Luv" wrote:
> I have NEVER heard of transcripts being altered before.
> Can anyone else confirm?"
D & L: It does happen, our transcripts were not exact. When
we asked the judge to tape our proceedings he said no
because "often there is a discrepancy in the tape & the
actual transcript." You answered your own question about the
integrity of the court system below.
JCT: Yet, the transcripts we did get did have Judge Edward's
right questions to the Crown, the most important words,
right.
> The written endorsement was on BLANK paper, did not show
> the file #, style of cause, etc.... and DID NOT CONTAIN
>THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT!!!!"
D & L: That is disturbing, blank!!! We hope that you can get
your hands on that tape. It sounds like that's the only way
to prove what he said. Maybe a motion to a higher court?
Wish we could help more.
JCT: So someone just wrote it down. I don't see the great
copruption as long as the info was right.
>"This in my opinion is the Crown on damage control, like
> they've been for years. It just seems to be getting
> completely out of hand now."
D & L: The crown we have, outright lies. He tells the judge
things about our motion's that are not true & then the judge
will only listen to him. Why would he listen to us, we're
not represented by some fat cat lawyer, so we must be
stupid, at least that's the attitude they give us.
We thought the judge was there to uphold our rights, but we
see that isn't they way it works, in Brantford anyway.
What ever the Rev. does, tell him you have to be persistant,
don't go away when they tell you to, that makes it easy for
them to sweep you & there problems under the carpet. We
think their on the run, but we're catching them :o) Good
luck D & L
JCT: The judge bought Parker and Krieger but didn't quash
his S.4 charge?
Anyway, I'm tired of facing Ontario judges with one hand
tied behind our backs by the Hitzig-Myrden resurrection. I'm
still praying for news of a double challenge in Hitzig-Free
BC in only 3 weeks.
We're counting on you Noreen to win that early date.
--
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
|
|
