From: johnsadumbass@gmail.com   
      
   On Tuesday, 14 February 2023 at 14:21:37 UTC-8, John KingofthePaupers Turmel   
   wrote:   
   > TURMEL: Covid Protest $880 Fine Trial adjourned to June 20   
   >   
   > JCT: My trial in Brantford Provincial Offences Act Hybrid   
   > Court slated for Feb 7 2023 at 1:30pm at   
   > #1-102 Wellington St. Brantford N3T2M2   
   >   
   > Offence Number 0260 999 00 1232657E00   
   > John Turmel   
   > You are charged:   
   > On the 3rd day April 2021 at 3pm at Brantford You did commit   
   > the offence of Fail to Comply/Obstruction S.7.0.2 contrary   
   > to the REOPENING ONTARIO ACT section 10(1)   
   > The total payable Set Fine, Costs, and Victim Surcharge as   
   > indicated on your Offence Notice: $880.00   
   >   
   > CR: Prosecutor A. Walsh   
   > J: Lady Judge   
   >   
   > CR: I would point out that the Defendant has a recording   
   > device.   
   >   
   > J: That is not allowed in these proceedings without the   
   > permission of the judicial officer..   
   >   
   > Turmel: I have a Consolidated Provincial Practice Direction   
   > with the actual text I'm handing in to the court. It says:   
   >   
   > Use of Electronic Devices in the Courtroom   
   > 100. Unless the proceeding judge orders otherwise, the   
   > use of electronic devices in silent mode and in a   
   > discreet and unobtrusive manner is permitted is   
   > permitted in the courtroom by   
   > d. self-represented parties...   
   > v. only for the purpose of note-taking.   
   >   
   > I've been doing this since 1988, 25 years, all the way up to   
   > the Ontario Court of Appeal, so I know that it's permitted   
   > and it's unobtrusive and it should not be a hindrance to the   
   > court at all.   
   >   
   > J: Is the recording in relation to other matters before the   
   > court today or are you acknowledging in open court that you   
   > are only recording for the purposes of your plea here today?   
   >   
   > Turmel: Yes. I just turned it on as I approached the front.   
   >   
   > J: Okay, if that is your undertaking that it's your honest   
   > response, then you can start by stating your name for the   
   > record:   
   >   
   > JCT: Nice that the judge didn't decide to order otherwise.   
   >   
   > Turmel: John Turmel.   
   >   
   > J: Thank you. And could we proceed to have this addressed:   
   >   
   > CR: Yes, we're seeking to have the matter adjourned over to   
   > a judicial pre-trial. This is a matter that will take up a   
   > great amount of judicial resources. I believe it's going to   
   > take more time than we have today so I'm requesting that it   
   > be scheduled for judicial pre-trial   
   >   
   > J: If that's acceptable, what date is given as the   
   > opportunity?   
   >   
   > CR: June 20 2023 at 3pm.   
   >   
   > J: Are you available for that purpose sir?   
   >   
   > Turmel: Yes. I can be. Right here in Courtroom number one.   
   >   
   > J: So June 20 2023 at 3pm for judicial pre-trial purposes.   
   >   
   > JCT: So I don't know where the Crown got the idea that this   
   > was going to take up a lot of resources, just a good guess.   
   >   
   > Can't help but suspect they're going to want to give up!   
   why would they give up? you lose all your cases.  they're slam dunks for the   
   Crown.  they'll win and you'll stiff them for costs as usual.   
   wanna bet you'll lose? HAR HAR HAR   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)