JCT: In making up an Application for Leave to Appeal to the
Supreme Court of Canada, you need to draft an Order taken
from the reasons for decision that reflects the issues of
the case.

So today, I'm mailing off the following letter along with
copies of the Orders to the Crown in Toronto for their
approval as to the form and content. There shouldn't be much
argument about the wording since I've cited them directly
from the court's reasons.

John C. Turmel, B. Eng.
8-37 Colborne E.
Brantford, N3T 2G3
Tel: 519-753-0645
Email: turmel@...

Tuesday April 13 2004

Croft Michaelson, Christopher Leafloor, Vanita Goela
Legal Counsel, Public Law Section
Ontario Regional Office
Department of Justice
Exchange Tower, 130 King St. W. #3400
Tel: 416-973-0392 Fax: 416-952-0298
Email: cmichael@... ("Michaelson, Croft"),
christopher.leafloor@...
VGoela@... ("Goela, Vanita"),

Re: OCA #39738 (Parker), #39740 (Turmel-Paquette)

Dear Sirs and Lady:

Appendix A is the Draft Order in the Terry Parker
(OCA#39738) appeal reflecting the issue in question and
Appendix B is the Order for the John Turmel (OCA#39740)
appeal of the Lederman decision to the Supreme Court of
Canada.

Please indicate acceptance as to form and content on a

Please indicate acceptance as to form and content on a
printed copy for each Order and mail them back to me in the
enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope for forwarding to
the Court of Appeal.

Not wanting to be connected with the Hitzig case again,
we'll be waiting until that derelict has been disposed by
the Supreme Court of Canada before filing our applications
for leave to appeal (in forma pauperis).

Yours truly,
John C. Turmel


APPENDIX A: PARKER ORDER OF COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
-------------------------------------------------------
Court File No: C39738

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
The Honourable Mr. Justice Doherty )
The Honourable Mr. Justice Goudge )
The Honourable Madam Justice Simmons )
) Tuesday Oct 7 2003
BETWEEN:
TERRANCE PARKER
Applicant
(Appellant & Respondent in Cross-appeal)
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
(Cross-Appellant)
ORDER

THIS APPEAL of the judgment of Mr. Justice Lederman dated January
9 2003 which dismissed the Appellant's application for an order
A) declaring that the prohibition on the possession of marijuana
in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is of no force and
effect since Aug 1 2001 or, in the alternative, B) extending the
constitutional exemption granted by the Ontario Court of Appeal
until such time as the Government has complied with the ruling of
the Ontario Court of Appeal to provide Applicant with non-
illusory access to the only medicine that is 100% effective in
his and many more Epilepsy cases, was heard on July 29,30,31 2003
at Osgoode Hall and judgment having been reserved until this day,
ON READING the material filed by the parties and on hearing the
submissions of the parties,

1. THIS COURT ORDERS the confirmation that the Government had not
enacted a constitutionally sound medical exemption by July 31
2001 and that the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 of the Controlled
Drugs and Substances Act has been of no force or effect after
July 31, 2001.

2. THIS COURT ORDERS that subsection 4(2)(c), section 7,
subsection 34(2), subsection 41(b) and section 54 of the
Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, S.O.R./2001-227 are of no
force and effect which renders constitutional the medical
exemption as described in the remaining provisions of the MMAR,
thereby rendering the possession prohibition in s.4 of the CDSA
no longer inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution.

3. THIS COURT ORDERS that the appeal is hereby dismissed without
costs.
(Signature of Judge or Registrar)


APPENDIX A: TURMEL ORDER OF COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
-------------------------------------------------------

Court File No. 39740
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
The Honourable Mr. Justice Doherty )
The Honourable Mr. Justice Goudge )
The Honourable Madam Justice Simmons )
) Tuesday Oct 7 2003
BETWEEN:
JOHN C. TURMEL
Applicant
(Appellant & Respondent in Cross-appeal)
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
(Cross-Appellant)

ORDER

THIS APPEAL of the judgment of Mr. Justice Lederman dated January
9 2003 which dismissed the Appellant's application for an order
A) declaring that the prohibition on the possession of marijuana
(cannabis) in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) is a
genocidal violation of Applicants' S.7 Right to Life in
accordance with the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R.
v. Parker and has been of no force and effect since Aug. 1 2001;
or in the alternative

B) granting Applicant a personal judicial exemption. ON READING
the material filed by the parties and on hearing the submissions
of the parties,

1. THIS COURT ORDERS the confirmation that the Government had not
enacted a constitutionally sound medical exemption by July 31
2001 and that the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 of the Controlled
Drugs and Substances Act has been of no force or effect after
July 31, 2001.

2. THIS COURT ORDERS that subsection 4(2)(c), section 7,
subsection 34(2), subsection 41(b) and section 54 of the
Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, S.O.R./2001-227 are of no
force and effect

3. THIS COURT ORDERS that the appeal is hereby dismissed without
costs.
(Signature of Judge or Registrar)

JCT: Notice that now we have to appeal because of the
quashing of the MMAR sections by the Hitzig group. If Alan
Young hadn't forced them to fix the MMAR, then the
prohibition would not now have become valid again, so the
court says.

Remember that the order that Bowser Burnstein drafted was
for:

"THIS COURT ORDERS that the cross-appeal is
allowed, in part, by setting aside the first two
paragraphs of the judgment of Lederman J., and
substituting therefore an order declaring that
subsection 4(2)(c), section 7, subsection 34(2),
subsection 41(b) and section 54 of the Marihuana
Medical Access Regulations, S.O.R./2001-227 are of
no force and effect."

JCT: Paul only left out the result of their victory:

"which renders constitutional the medical
exemption as described in the remaining provisions
of the MMAR, thereby rendering the possession
prohibition in s.4 of the CDSA no longer
inconsistent with the provisions of the
Constitution.

JCT: Think about that. Alan Young's Hitzig victory renders
the MMAR constitutional thereby rendering prohibition no
longer unconstitutional.

If Alan Young had not won the above order declaring those
sections of the non-working access mechanism gone, without
the great Hitzig victory about fixing the MMAR, the law
would have been declared dead on Terry Parker Day on Aug. 1
2001 but not have been declared re-alive on Oct. 7 2003!

All because of Alan Young and Paul Burstein. Their Hitzig
case brought the invalid law back to life, so they say. The
celebrated Hitzig victory revalidated the prohibition for
the Canadian Marijuana movement. Har har har har.

And for one last laugh at Beagle Burstein's Supreme Court of
Canada issue:

PART II: POINTS IN ISSUE
Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that the
appropriate remedy for the constitutional defects
in the MMAR was to simply sever certain provisions
without also remiting the case back to the learned
Motions Judge so that the court below could ensure
that the new medical marijuana scheme created by
the Court of Appeal's Order and the Government's
response thereto, would adequately address the
needs of seriously ill Canadians?

JCT: It's tough not to feel superior when constantly faced
with such mediocrity by their best.

So while the Hitzig Order stresses the fix that brought
prohibition back to life, our Order stresses the death of
the prohibition that cannot be brought back to life by any
fix other than by Parliament. Not three doctors can declare
a penal sanction back to life. Not three firemen can declare
a penal sanction back to life. Not three policemen, not
three engineers, not three monkeys that swung down off a
vine onto a bench can declare a penal sanction back to life.
Only Parliament may re-impose criminal statutes.

The fact that a thousand extra epileptics have died due to
decision of the present occupants on the bench only makes
the matter sadder.

So all we have to do is wait until the Hitzig detritus is
garbaged by Canada's highest court before our Parker's and
my quality applications go in.

Now you know where we're at and what the issue will be.


--
Abolitionist Slave Leader John C."The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
for UNILETS interest-free time-based currency in U.N. resolution C6
to Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel 519-753-0645 USENET: can.politics