From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   "How can you let Conroy take on the case after the   
   criticisms so far?"   
      
   JCT: Because, though I had to keep beating on him to keep   
   the Coalition off my back, I understood some mitigating   
   factors they did not in his defence. Not up to me to defend   
   him from my valid innuendoes.   
      
   1) I can't bet he expected the Possess Permits not to be   
   grandfathered with the Grow Permits. So the Left-Outs really   
   can't be his fault though his Allard decision lost it for   
   them, so, brutal me...   
      
   2) I can't blame him for not seeing the "Personal Medical   
   Use" limit on the exemption against S.5 trafficking because   
   I hadn't even seen the need. If you remember my first   
   parsing parsing of his Action, I joked he couldn't ask for   
   exemption from S.5 trafficking. We only had the Parker Ace   
   for S.4 Possession and Krieger Ace for S.7 Cultivation   
   but never an angle to demand the right to trafficking. Until   
   John brought up trading strains. I immediately wondered how   
   the Crown could play back at that and realized their only   
   way was "can't traffick to the kids." So out came the limit   
   for "Personal Medical Use." With S.5 covered, I could ask   
   for the first time ever to strike the word of the banned   
   list!! How easy to understand repeal. And there's a really   
   good chance I'd have never seen that if Conroy hadn't had   
   the insight to demand S.5 relief that I'd have missed.   
      
   3) It was pretty well financially impossible to produce the   
   proper legal evidentiary record against the 20 torts we   
   have. No Doctors alone took the whole of Mernagh's   
   resources. So what kind of magic do I have that I can handle   
   the doctors in minutes? Patient-Grower limit took all of   
   Sfetkopoulos'. Again, how can I do it in minutes? And   
   Grower-Garden limit took all of Beren's, same thing. Plus I   
   manage to magically cover another 13 torts.   
      
   So John had to pick from all the possible torts he was going   
   to have to highlight to get his clients their exemptions and   
   using the easiest ones to win made sense. The hash is   
   already won in the Owen Smith case so that's in for sure.   
   Ban on Outdoor sunlight is another good argument. Ban on in-   
   dwelling is requisite for those who want their self-grows.   
   The 150-gram limit seemed an easy win too.   
      
   But for him to prepare the documentation for the other 16   
   Big and Little Issues we have raised would have been   
   prohibitive so he has a ready excuse for using only the 4   
   easies, doesn't he, even if I painted him a traitor for   
   dropping the Big Guns? After all, he did say he considered   
   going after the other flaws later. (if he could afford it,   
   probably not but wanted to.)   
      
   Notice that all my critiques of him, Big Guns left out by a   
   traitor, turn into the best 4 peas he could shoot given the   
   financial limitations. He brought out the need for S.5   
   relief and I qualified it. Doesn't sound so much like an   
   oops. And let's face it, without it, I'd have never thought   
   of it and we wouldn't have the KISS "strike MF off the list"   
   we do now.   
      
   The reason he can do the legal counsel bit for all those   
   torts is that the numbers in my Expert Affidavit in Real   
   Science take the place of his evidentiary record's Expert   
   Witnesses guestimates in Social Science. My opinion that no   
   DIN deters doctors and financial support becomes fact when   
   the Crown can't challenge it. No more evidentiary record   
   needed. How would he prove that? How to show evidence that   
   doctors are deterred? How to show that no insurance does   
   matter? Seems obvious but how to show it to a judge? Not   
   easy though it's logically obvious. So the conundrum he   
   faced gathering evidence precluded his omni-barrel attack   
   that my elimination of such evidence by an expert opinion on   
   odds of survival allows.   
      
   Since he can now point out how using my Expert Stats   
   Affidavit lets him now also argue the full gamut of   
   objections, he has easy reason to step up to the Gatling Gun   
   he could never afford to build before.   
      
   So to have him appear in court to take on the main role in   
   the case, I give my 2 minutes expert statement on a tort,   
   and then he presents evidence from his 3,000 impact   
   statements (we only have 50 in the standardized affidavits   
   that can't come close to what he's got). He doesn't need any   
   other expert opinions from Social Scientists when he's got   
   the Expert Opinion from a Real Scientist. Open for extra   
   comments, close. Next point.   
      
   Yet, imagine if his 3,000 supporters laid the charge with   
   the anti-fraud centre with him, then let him inveigh against   
   the sumbitches who perjured themselves in his Allard case.   
      
   And if the RCMP won't charge, lead a motion for mandamus   
   that they do their duty, and then appeals. I've done it to   
   the top before. Not needing evidentiary record means we only   
   have to pay him for his time. Lead that attack and I'll even   
   fund-raise.   
      
   Do you get it, I'm willing to give up lead guerrilla counsel   
   chair to play solely the role of Expert Witness and let a   
   fearless QC with 40 years experience (I only have 35) do the   
   part I have no expertise in doing at all, zero, presenting   
   witness evidence. All I could do is present the math and   
   have no special skill or experience dealing with presenting   
   witnesses. So I'm ready to give up lead chair on the show so   
   I can focus on lead chair on the stand. (though I may be   
   stuck establishing the point at the counsel chair beside   
   him). No witness evidence at this point, I think. Maybe I   
   can?   
      
   So he forgot the limit, I'd have never thought of it. Any   
   Gold Stars going to remember a early oops if he's in on the   
   kill, if he delivers the coup de grace.   
      
   In other words, I've been stressing his half-empty glass and   
   could now stress his half-full contribution. All he has to   
   do is admit my Expert Affidavit saves him a ton of   
   evidentiary preparation that allows him to now finally bang   
   on all the torts he could never afford to bang on before.   
      
   And at the same time, he can pull HC's shield just before   
   his strike. What a one-two, strip of protection and shove in   
   the shiv. If he comes along, he can still come out of this a   
   hero. What a heroic sacrifice bunt at the end to expose the   
   heart of the matter. But if you also consider how his 3,000   
   financial supporters could easily be persuaded to sink a   
   final $2 to swamp the system, he himself said a lot more   
   applicants would express our concern, well, enough to cause   
   breakdown sure would express that concern and more too.   
      
   And all it takes is accepting that my Expert Stats Affidavit   
   liberates him from his usual necessary evidentiary record   
   and to strike at all the torts he'd ever wanted to strike at   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)