From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: Seems Chris Enns was given a beating by a judge who got it wrong   
   but got the POLCOA and BENO arguments in for the appeal:   
      
   Chris Enns   
   Monday Jan 12 2014   
      
   Justice Zimmer in Truro today, in the case of R v. Andrew D Hillman   
   absolutely destroyed the Turmel s. 601 quash motion. It was painful to   
   listen to.   
      
   Apparently when a court of appeal in another province makes a ruling   
   and the SCC refuses leave to appeal the ruling, it means they're   
   serious. It went J.P. 2003, Voss, McGrady&Parker(2011), LeClair, Kubby   
   to cut-up BENO.   
      
   JCT: Someone cut up that the JP Court ruled No Offence when Bad   
   Exemption! Har har har har har har. All my guys except for Kubby. And   
   remember, they only read the decisions, not my arguments about where   
   they were wrong.   
      
   CE: POLCOA was knocked dead with words direct from Voss. It went   
   beyond a simple dismissal in the ruling. The judge went on the record   
   to blast me for wasting the courts time and made point that anyone   
   with any legal aptitude would have appreciated the lack of merit to   
   the arguments.   
      
   JCT: He can rant all he wants, he made a mistake and now his mistake   
   can be appealed!   
      
   CE: As such, I will no longer be allowed to speak on behalf of Mr.   
   Hillman and can only provide support from the bleachers per se.   
      
   JCT: You got to speak on his behalf?!! A McKenzie Friend in Canada.   
   Pretty rare achievement. Luckily, what's said never really matters,   
   what gets discussed above is what's written down.   
      
   CE: I felt really emotionally drained for the better part of the   
   afternoon after a personal round with the Crown afterwards (sorry   
   again Andrew) but I've come to appreciate that I need to stop looking   
   at all of this from the same lens of the crown, that is in terms of   
   wins and losses.   
      
   JCT: The purpose was to make you think you had loser cards and   
   shouldn't have bothered contesting the pot. Trust me, POLCOA and BENO   
   are too simple of concepts for lawyers to remain stupid for long. If   
   they're unaware of the import, every lawyer you meet will agree that   
   POLCOA is the Canadian legislative ethos. All I ever did was put it to   
   an acronym and never expected the dolts to start denying the acronym   
   without realizing it's their own ethos.   
      
   CE: The goal here is to relieve suffering at every step in any way   
   that we can. My intentions are to guarantee to the best of my ability   
   the liberty of my family, friends, and those who reach out for help in   
   a time of crisis.   
      
   JCT: You put the POLCOA and BENO cards into the game. Can you actually   
   explain to us the reasons the judge said that Parliament Only   
   legislating was wrong, did he have any example to cite of someone else   
   legislating new law? Bet not. So why worry if all he can do is say   
   it's wrong because it's been found wrong but not being able in any of   
   them to explain to you why it's wrong that Parliament Only   
   Legislates!   
      
   And that Courts may only abrogate. Does he have any other examples of   
   courts reviving penal sanctions without Parliament? Bet he dished out   
   the fire without any of the heat.   
      
   Actually, there is only one other instance in Canadian jurisprudence   
   when a penal sanction was enacted by a court without Parliament! It   
   wasn't legislated into the criminal code, just a judge saying he'd   
   decided to create a new offence, and then have that blurb added as a   
   court citation to the Code. Why has no one ever heard of it? It was   
   one of my cases. In order to get me.   
      
   I'd found a loop-hole in the gaming house law and been acquitted and   
   was running a 28-table underground game. And a judge decided to find   
   that my being so much better than everyone else made it illegal. So   
   they just added the citation to the law: the gaming house definition   
   has been expanded to include the winnings of an exceptionally-skilled   
   professional gambler. So the judge made it illegal for the guy running   
   the game to be a winner!! Just by saying so and them adding the   
   citation to the Code without Parliament. To stop me from taking over   
   the gambling industry in Canada. With billions at stake, they can find   
   a judge to say he made new law! Doubt anyone else has been busted for   
   the new law that running a game while being too good is a crime.   
      
   So right in the Criminal Code is the proof of their corruption. A   
   judge enacted a penal sanction and no one remembered their law school   
   POLCOA. Actually, it works the same way everywhere! Try asking a US or   
   UK lawyer if anyone but Parliament can create a law to jail you like   
   we do in Canada where the courts have ruled that only Parliament   
   legislating is wrong! Har har har. Doesn't that keep sounding so   
   comedic?   
      
   CE: I'm letting myself get caught up in their headgames which are an   
   infinite rabbit hole. Time to take some John Turmel guerrilla law   
   inspiration and when the going gets tough, put your head down and get   
   typing. Wordstars aren't born overnight you know....   
      
   JCT: It's true I can skirt the very edges or disrespect and even   
   contempt for my low-tech adjudicators in arguing back, something I'd   
   not recommend (getting the audience to laugh at something the judge   
   said) but gets remembered whether you're jailed or not. Came closest   
   with Justice Lederman of the Parker-Hitzig-Turmel case. One witness   
   called it the shoot-out at Alice's Restaurant (never seen it). He   
   didn't dare bust me and I dared slap his brain around at that late   
   point.   
      
   My response:   
      
   Jct: Sounds like you didn't put the judge on the POLCOA Prong!   
   Interpretation Act 43a says you can't revive a dead law in one act by   
   fixing something in another. The Hitzig Court says they fixed the MMAR   
   to revive the prohibitions in the CDSA. So we say:   
   Who are you going to obey? Parliament or the Ontario Court of Appeal?   
   Sure, the Crown will point at a dozen judges who obeyed the Hitzig   
   Court instead of the Interpretation Act. (Looking him right in the   
   eye:) Who are you going to obey?   
   And what's really funniest, ask any lawyer, they were taught that only   
   Parliament legislates penal laws though the courts may abrogate the   
   bad ones. Then point out how the courts have recently rejected the   
   argument that: Parliament Only Legislates; Courts Only Abrogate! Har   
   har har har har har.   
   Then cite the half dozen times that the JP decision says there was No   
   Offence for the years between 2001-3 when there was a Bad Exemption,   
   and how many courts have recently found "Bad Exemption means No   
   Offence" to be wrong! Har har har har har har.   
   Anyway, I will eternally regret not having appealed the Voss case at   
   the SCC because it was one of mine, Elisha McDermott and John Voss!   
   and I could have but was too swamped. Heck, I can still appeal Voss   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)