injunction/court case updates

G

Gmack420

Well-Known Member
doingdishes said:
did you notice how CONroy mentioned Nadine in his title but said nothing?
she's got some things cooking that will be very interesting.
Click to expand...
He wouldn't comment publicly on his own personnel legal issues I'm sure. Seems like there will be a civil suit and possible criminal case. but the criminal case is not upto anyone but the crown.
 
G

Gmack420

Well-Known Member
doingdishes said:
i spoke to him several times and he is out there. very radical! some of his idea's are nothing i would ever try.
i think he is good for the most part for us though...his help is completely free and he will take all calls and let you know what your next steps should be.
Click to expand...
I think he's crazy but has good intentions. Time will tell if his statement of claim is worth anything or not. But can't fault him for helping us out for free. So I wish him the best.
 
WHATFG

WHATFG

Well-Known Member
tiktak1297 said:
With all due respect, I know several people that have known and dealt with John Turmel over the years. Please don't take this as a defense of Conroy's actions. He may very well be in the wrong and fucking us all. I just don't know.
But everyone I spoke to regarding Turmel, including a few lawyers, has given me the same response about him. Apparently he is a nut job. Over inflated ego, very little knowledge, and more dangerous to the community than good. He has been escorted out of several courtrooms for his abusive and harassing behavior.
So while Conroy may have royally fucked up, please don't give any weight to what Turmel says.
Click to expand...
Turmel has an understanding of how the documents NEED to be presented...that is the beauty of our system...you DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A LAWYER! There is absolutely nothing wrong with him pointing out the definicies in conroys representation...let's face it..WE were not represented with the money we donated...only 4 people were...
 
G

gb123

Well-Known Member
there was a "judgement" last week.
A person can grow 30 plants and receive a $1.30 fine ..if the police want to waste tax payers money and court costs that judges DONT WANT!

so...Phelan can just disappear. Its been done already..quietly and nonchalant like and no one cares even..
 
R.Raider

R.Raider

Well-Known Member
gb123 said:
there was a "judgement" last week.
A person can grow 30 plants and receive a $1.30 fine ..if the police want to waste tax payers money and court costs that judges DONT WANT!

so...Phelan can just disappear. Its been done already..quietly and nonchalant like and no one cares even..
Click to expand...
Happy to hear that but still would like to hear Phelan's ruling.
 
Last edited:
U

user hidden

Well-Known Member
gb123 said:
there was a "judgement" last week.
A person can grow 30 plants and receive a $1.30 fine ..if the police want to waste tax payers money and court costs that judges DONT WANT!

so...Phelan can just disappear. Its been done already..quietly and nonchalant like and no one cares even..
Click to expand...

would love to know what court so we can get a copy of the ruling instead of just media reports
 
TheRealDman

TheRealDman

Well-Known Member
There was no precedent set in the Quebec case. Not that I don't agree with his awesome ruling....he rocked it!

He's just a lowly provincial court judge, much like the Ontario provincial judges in the past decade that have ruled one way or another that MJ is going to become legal if the government doesn't fix this or that.

Justice Phelan is a federal court judge. He's not interested (or bound in any way) in provincial opinions other than in BC....and again, at the federal court level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top