Wed Aug 1, 2001 TURMEL: Fumble. Parker didn't get access. Touchdown. Last year, the Ontario Court of Appeal ordered that the Government of Canada give Terry Parker and others with a legitimate need access to marijuana or the prohibition laws would be struck down. There were three possible scenarios: a) Health Canada do not change the access rules in one year; b) Health Canada make the access rules easier; c) Health Canada make the access rules harder. a) Of course, if they did not change the access rules, then the consequence of the Parker decision would be...; b) if they did make access easier, then the question would be whether they made it easy enough to comply with the Court ruling; c) if they made access harder, it would be the same consequence as not having changed the rules at all... Everyone is complaining that Health Canada did not make access easier, they did not leave access the same, they actually made access to marijuana harder. Now consider that in the actual case of Terry Parker himself, Health Canada failed to grant him an exemption. That's right. The first guy they had to provide access for and they forgot. And it's too late to fix. The year to provide access to our poster boy is up. Terry Parker asked his lawyer Aaron Harnett to call me about what I wanted to know about his case. When he did, the first thing I said was that I was glad I got the chance to speak to him because we're all curious whether or not Terry wins. Harnett answered "Good question. I don't know. I have no idea." (1) I guess if he hadn't thought of asking himself, it might seem a good question. I suggested that it was up to him to ask. Terry is the only guy in country who has to ask whether Health Canada blew it or not. Perhaps it was all our little pin-pricks that caused Jody Gomber and her staff to over-react in the wrong direction and forget that to avoid an end to prohibition, they had to make it easier for Terry, didn't they? He said "Yes. See, one of the issues though, charging into court and saying "Here are new regs, do they conform? "The trouble is it's really expensive. So, that's the first thing." No kidding. Sure, him getting paid may the first priority on his mind but finishing the case by getting the answer officially would be my priority and his getting paid would be it's the last thing. I asked if they weren't already on the spot? Again he responded "But for one, it's real expensive. Nobody charges into the Court of Appeal without having spent about 300 hours in preparation." I told him I have many times. I'm actually well-known in the Court of Appeal for quick action. He pointed out there's a difference. He goes in a little bit differently than your average lawyer. And I'd bet a lot more slowly, for sure. This guy needs 300 Hours of paid preparation before he can ask "Did I win?" I pointed out he might miss a grand opportunity here that's going to pass to somebody else because Barry Burkholder was going to be in Federal Court on Monday morning and ask. He said Barry was welcome to it but he wasn't jumping up and down at the opportunity to spend another 500 hours on "an issue that I've already won, right?" I said no, you haven't won it. That's my whole point. I know I think you won it but you haven't got them to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s. So he tried another way of looking at it and told me to think strategically for a moment. Here he is telling me, Canada's top court- certified expert witness in the Mathematics of Gambling, to think strategically when I'm used to thinking strategically and tactically at the same time and he probably doesn't even know the difference between the two. Why should a guy who barely scrapped through high school math think he knows anything about game theory mathematics of thinking strategically? He said that since the Court of Appeal said some incredible things in the Parker decision, the high- water mark being for the constitutional eligibility, if you then go back to them and give them a chance to water down their original decision, they will do it. If you avoid going back to that court and go into a different court on a different day, it's not for a different court to water down what the Court of Appeal said. So, in his experience, they've put a lot of thought into what they want to do, how they want to follow this up. But if they give the Court of Appeal a chance to water down its own judgment, it's their belief that they will water it down. I pointed out not if you ask them for a "Yes or No." Just a "Yes" or a "No" to the question you have framed. He thought that was unrealistic. "We don't tell them what to write." You can if you're saying it on National TV. I pointed out that "I'm not a real lawyer so I can do stuff like that." He noted it didn't mean I was going to win. I mentioned that I do and he said "Well Mr. Turmel, with the greatest respect, you know what, I'm not impressed by your legal credentials. Of course, when he said "with the greatest respect," I knew he was lawying. But I admitted that I don't have any legal credentials. He found my interest in the issue "very cute" but when you're dealing with this stuff at this level, you take into account strategic considerations and as a courtesy, he was outlining the thinking of the people for me. What's funny is that he thinks his being at "this level" of the Court of Appeal is high. I've personally argued in the Supreme Court of Canada five times and prepared 5 more cases for others. So I wasn't too impressed by the "this level" he was impressed with being on. And we know his Number One strategic consideration, that is to do nothing until someone pays him some more money to do it. I hate it when lo-techs who barely squeaked through high school math use words like strategic when it's unlikely they even know the difference between tactical and strategic considerations, let alone have to math to measure them. Speaking of strategic thinking, notice I pinned him strategically for all time on my very first question! The strategically winning question was "Did he win" and strategically, the lawyer didn't know. Within one question, I knew and he knew that I'm talking about something he never even thought of. And then a little later, he says that strategic considerations force him to protect what he's won. Of course, what he's won is the fame and notoriety of putting forward Terry's case. Terry actually winning something useful isn't of interest to him since it adds nothing to his symbolic victory. He wants to use the little things he won in Parker in his other cases where they can't over-rule the higher court. Finishing Terry's case now gives him nothing new at all. But going for Terry's win can lose him those goodies in the other cases so it's safer for him to take full advantage of the little tactical well-paying stuff even if Terry never actually gets his win certified or not. I told him that when you are that close to victory, to not snatch it and make it official on the grounds you think they are going to regress means you can't handle yourself in court. He had a win in your hands. At this point, typical coward who can dish it out but can't take, he wants to hang up because "I don't see being insulted by you." He can insult me for only having an applied science degree in electrical engineering and not having any lawying credentials but when I insulted him for being incompetent with his credentials, he starts running. I could just point out that not only was he incompetent, he was also irresponsible to have a grand opportunity here to finish your job for your client and not do it so he could milk his other clients with the reputation for having won the Parker case that he earlier admitted he didn't know if he'd won. Don't shysters make you sick. I laughed at him saying "You don't have an answer for Terry, right? You agreed earlier you didn't have the answer yet on the case, so how can you stop when all you've got to do is ask?" So the money- grubbing shyster ran away and hung up. It's okay for him to insult my legal credentials but it's not okay for me to insult his legal performance. He can dish it out but can't take it. But we know his first priority, getting money, and his second priority is not losing what he everyone thinks he won even if he knows it might not be true. Poker players have a name for guys like this who win a small pot and then play scared for the rest of game. The easiest kind to beat. "Did Terry win?" or as he put it "Do they conform?" And his answer was a clear: "Good question. I don't know. I have no idea." And he doesn't want to know. But I know that when they didn't give Parker access, they blew prohibition for everyone. We just have to find a way to get a court to admit it since Terry's lawyer won't ask.