JCT: You'll remember in the last post about our victorious
declaration that the marijuana prohibition had died on Terry
Parker Day Aug 1 2001 thus forcing the government to stay
4000 pending possession charges.

TERRANCE PARKER ORDER (Turmel draft)

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)

JCT: The Order for John Turmel was slightly different:
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;

JCT: The Order for relief was the same. So I sent off my
draft Orders to the Crown for their approval as to form and
content at http://yahoogroups.com/group/medpot/message/1170

I got the Crown's response Friday which read:

Department of Justice
Canada
Ontario Regional Office
Exchange Tower, 130 King St. W. #3400
Tel: 416-973-9638 Fax: 416-952-0298

Our File: 2-493443-2

April 22, 2004

VIA REGISTERED MAIL

JOHN C. TURMEL TERRANCE PARKER J.J. MARC PAQUETTE
8-37 Colborne E. 2209-55 Triller 162-A Atlantic Ave.
Brantford Toronto Hawkesbury
N3T 2G3 M6R 2H6 K6A 1V6


Dear Sirs:

Re: HITZIG, Warren et al v. HMQ
Court File No:

We recently received Mr. Turmel's letter enclosing draft
orders regarding the Ontario Court of Appeal decision
released October 7 2003. The draft orders relate to court
file numbers 39738 and 39740.

Mr. Turmel's draft orders, however, are not appropriate.
Instead, the draft orders that were distributed last
December are proper orders in respect of these proceedings.

We had prepared draft orders for these matters in December
2003 which were sent to you by my colleague Christopher
Leafloor on December 17 2003 for your approval as to form
and content. At that time, we also sent a draft order to Mr.
Burstein regarding the Hitzig matter, which he approved as
to form and content and has been issued and entered with the
Court. A copy of that order is enclosed. I also enclose for
your convenience two draft orders regarding the Turmel and
Paquette and the Parker matters for your approval as to form
an content. If the drafts are acceptable to you, please
indicate on these draft orders, "Approved as to form and
content", and sign your name, the date, and then spell your
name and address. Then please return to me one copy of the
signed draft order with your notation of approval. We will
then take steps to have these orders issued and entered. If
you do not agree with the form and content of the draft
orders, please notify me. Otherwise, you will need to
arrange for an appointment to settle the orders with the
Ontario Court of Appeal Registrar.

A draft order must conform, as closely as possible, with the
strict wording of the decision of the Court of Appeal. If
the draft order is not consistent with the Court's decision,
then the Court will refuse to accept it and will instruct us
to revise the draft order and obtain, again, approvals as to
form and content.

Mr. Turmel indicated, as well, that he intends to seek leave
to appeal. We would like to draw Mr. Turmel's attention that
the time period within which he could have sought leave to
appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada elapsed on December 7
2003.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any
questions. Yours truly,
Vanita Goela
Counsel Public Law Section

JCT: So I've written her back:

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

Tuesday April 27 2004

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: VGoela@...

Re: PARKER, Terrance et al v. HMQ

JCT: Dear Ms. Goela:

In your letter dated April 22 2004, you wrote:

CR: Re: HITZIG, Warren et al v. HMQ
Court File No:

JCT: You were in attendance at my motion when the judge
specifically titled the consolidated appeals as "Parker et
al v. HMQ" so please refer to the Oct. 7 2003 decision of
the Court of Appeal as "Parker et al" regardless of which
name the Court of Appeal once again erroneously put on their
Reasons for Judgment. This is just a continuing effect of
their choosing to hear all the evidence chronologically
backwards.

CR: Mr. Turmel's draft orders, however, are not appropriate.
Instead, the draft orders that were distributed last
December are proper orders in respect of these proceedings.

JCT: Unfortunately, the distribution of your Orders in
December didn't reach me until now. But how can you know the
issues reflected in the Order are appropriate when you are
not the party who is going to file the application for leave
to appeal that Order, I am? I know what I'm going to be
appealing and know what issue needs to be reflected in the
Order. I didn't understand why you'd be writing up the
Orders when I was the one who was selecting the issue from
the judgment to be reflected on the Order that is appealed.

CR: At that time, we also sent a draft order to Mr. Burstein
regarding the Hitzig matter, which he approved as to form
and content and has been issued and entered with the Court.
A copy of that order is enclosed.

JCT: I noted that that Hitzig Order reflected the
declaration of invalidity of the Marihuana Medical Access
Regulations "permission" sections they had demanded.

CR: I also enclose for your convenience two draft orders
regarding the Turmel and Paquette and the Parker matters for
your approval as to form an content. If the drafts are
acceptable to you, please indicate on these draft orders,
"Approved as to form and content", and sign your name, the
date, and then spell your name and address. Then please
return to me one copy of the signed draft order with your
notation of approval. We will then take steps to have these
orders issued and entered. CR: If you do not agree with the
form and content of the draft orders, please notify me.
Otherwise, you will need to arrange for an appointment to
settle the orders with the Ontario Court of Appeal
Registrar.

JCT: As to the text of the Crown's draft Order:

CR: ORDER

THIS APPEAL by Terrance Parker, of the judgment of Mr.
Justice Lederman dated January 9 2003 which dismissed the
Appellant's application for a declaration that the
prohibition on the possession of marijuana in the Controlled
Drugs and Substances Act is a genocidal violation of
Parker's rights under the Charter,

JCT: Unfortunately, this is not what Parker asked for.
Parker asked "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," not that it's "a
genocidal violation of Parker's rights." Turmel-Paquette
mentioned genocide. I also note that your Order fails to
reflect the declaration of invalidity of the CDSA
"prohibition" section "since Aug. 1 2001". Your abridged
version deleted important information. I insist that the
actual accurate original wording of the Parker application
is more appropriate than your abbreviated version.

CR: and other relief,

JCT: Once again, since Pitt J. originally granted the relief
by "extending the constitutional exemption granted by the
Ontario Court of Appeal until such time as the Government
has complied with the ruling of the Court," the Order should
reflect what had been demanded but not granted by the Court
of Appeal and will still be demanded at the Supreme Court.
So I have to insist that the actual text of Parker's
original application be used, not your more "appropriate"
version.

CR: AND THIS CROSS-APPEAL by the Respondent Her Majesty The
Queen, for an Order setting aside the judgment of Mr.
Justice Lederman dated January 9 2003, and replacing it with
a judgment dismissing the applicants' applications, were
heard on July 29, 30, and 31 2003 at Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen
Street West, Toronto, and judgment having been reserved
until this day,

JCT: Justice Lederman did not grant our applications for
CDSA relief, he granted the Hitzig application for MMAR
relief. So this text refers to what you wanted for the
Hitzig demands, not ours. Your Crown appeal of the Lederman
relief for the Hitzigs is completely inappropriate in our
appeal of Lederman refusing relief for us. You can't really
want the Court of Appeal to substitute an "application
dismissed" for Lederman's "application not granted?" That's
why we appealed, because Lederman did not grant the relief
we claimed. So our Order doesn't need any mention of your
cross-appeal against the Hitzig MMAR relief.

CR: ON READING the material filed by the parties and on
hearing the submissions of Terrance Parker, appearing in
person, and counsel for Her Majesty the Queen,

1. THIS COURT ORDERS that the appeal of Terrance Parker is
hereby dismissed;

JCT: Why would you want to drop mention that the court
declared prohibition invalid on Terry Parker Day Aug. 1 2001
and that it became revalid on Oct 7 2003? That is the very
issue that is going to be appealed to the Supreme Court and
should be reflected in the Order. This points out why it is
the person who is going to appeal who decides what the Order
should include.

CR: 2. THIS COURT ORDERS that the cross-appeal of Her
Majesty The Queen is hereby dismissed;
3. THIS COURT makes no order as to costs.

JCT: Your cross-appeal of the Hitzig MMAR relief granted has
no place in our Order detailing the CDSA relief granted.
Your Order makes it sound like nothing came out of the
appeals. Something happened in that decision that made the
Crown stay all pending s.4 possession charges and we'd like
whatever that was to be reflected in our Order. We can
appreciate how you may not want that reflected in the Order
but that's no reason to label as "not appropriate" the
reflecting of the issue that is going to be appealed.
Finally, looking at the final Hitzig Order:

CR: 2. 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: Your Hitzig Order reflected the result of their demand
for the invalidation of the permission sections so our
Orders should reflect the result of our demands for the
invalidation of the prohibition section in the same way.

CR: A draft order must conform, as closely as possible, with
the strict wording of the decision of the Court of Appeal.
If the draft order is not consistent with the Court's
decision, then the Court will refuse to accept it and will
instruct us to revise the draft order and obtain, again,
approvals as to form and content."

JCT: I've done my best to fairly put into the Orders what
was in paragraphs 166 and 170 of the Court's decision:

OCA: [166] The declarations of invalidity remove the single
unconstitutional barrier to eligibility and sufficient
barriers to supply that ATP holders will be reasonably able
to meet their medical needs from licit sources. As a result,
the MMAR as modified become a constitutionally sound medical
exemption to the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 of the CDSA.

[170] There will immediately be a constitutionally valid
exemption in effect and the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 of
the CDSA will immediately be constitutionally valid and of
full force and effect. In R. v. Parker, supra, this court
declared the prohibition invalid as of July 31, 2001 if by
that date the Government had not enacted a constitutionally
sound medical exemption. Our decision in this case confirms
that it did not do so. Hence the marihuana prohibition in s.
4 has been of no force or effect since July 31, 2001. Since
the July 8, 2003 regulation did not address the eligibility
deficiency, that alone could not have cured the problem.
However, our order has the result of constitutionalizing the
medical exemption created by the Government. As a result,
the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 is no longer inconsistent
with the provisions of the Constitution. Although Parliament
may subsequently choose to change it, that prohibition is
now no longer invalid, but is of full force and effect.
Those who establish medical need are simply exempted from
it. This consequence removes the cloud of uncertainty from
the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 of the CDSA - a cloud
which we were told in argument has created very considerable
confusion for courts and law enforcement agencies alike.

JCT: I reduced the above paragraphs down to its basic issue,
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 and that the Court's MMAR tinkerings
"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."

Isn't that quite a good reduction of the whole issue that's
going to be under appeal? If we're appealing the fact the
Court declared the prohibition invalid then declared it
revalidated again, shouldn't the Order under appeal reflect
those two statements?

If you insist on the ultimate precision, I'm including two
other last pages which will say:

1. THIS COURT ORDERS that the declarations of invalidity
remove the single unconstitutional barrier to eligibility
and sufficient barriers to supply that ATP holders will be
reasonably able to meet their medical needs from licit
sources. As a result, the MMAR as modified become a
constitutionally sound medical exemption to the marihuana
prohibition in s. 4 of the CDSA.

2. THIS COURT ORDERS that there will immediately be a
constitutionally valid exemption in effect and the marihuana
prohibition in s. 4 of the CDSA will immediately be
constitutionally valid and of full force and effect. In R.
v. Parker, supra, this court declared the prohibition
invalid as of July 31, 2001 if by that date the Government
had not enacted a constitutionally sound medical exemption.
Our decision in this case confirms that it did not do so.
Hence the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 has been of no force
or effect since July 31, 2001. Since the July 8, 2003
regulation did not address the eligibility deficiency, that
alone could not have cured the problem. However, our order
has the result of constitutionalizing the medical exemption
created by the Government. As a result, the marihuana
prohibition in s. 4 is no longer inconsistent with the
provisions of the Constitution. Although Parliament may
subsequently choose to change it, that prohibition is now no
longer invalid, but is of full force and effect. Those who
establish medical need are simply exempted from it. This
consequence removes the cloud of uncertainty from the
marihuana prohibition in s. 4 of the CDSA - a cloud which we
were told in argument has created very considerable
confusion for courts and law enforcement agencies alike.

3. THIS COURT ORDERS that the appeal of John C. Turmel and
J.J. Marc Paquette is hereby dismissed without costs.

_________________________________
(Signature of Judge or Registrar)

JCT: Or to be even more brief,

"1. THIS COURT ORDERS paragraphs 166 and 170 of the
Judgment."

CR: "If you do not agree with the form and content of the
draft orders, please notify me. Otherwise, you will need to
arrange for an appointment to settle the orders with the
Ontario Court of Appeal Registrar."

JCT: I'm sending another draft for your approval based on
your model without your deletions and without mentioning
your cross-appeal of the Hitzig relief in our Order. And the
second draft with the full text of paragraphs 166 and 170.
After your approval, I will take steps to have our Orders
issued and entered. I've never done it before and want the
thrill myself.

Should you have a better way of reducing paragraphs 166 and
170 into a more concise Order, please feel free to make
those suggestions before I book an appointment before the
registrar with my suggested Order, an Order with the actual
paragraphs 160 and 170 typed out, an Order for Paragraphs
166 and 170.

CR: Mr. Turmel indicated, as well, that he intends to seek
leave to appeal. We would like to draw Mr. Turmel's
attention that the time period within which he could have
sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada
elapsed on December 7 2003.

JCT: Terry Parker and I do not need an extension of time to
file an application for leave to appeal late like Paul
Burstein needed an extension of time to file the Hitzig
application for leave when they were late because we're "in
forma pauperis" pursuant to Supreme Court of Canada rules.

CR: Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any
questions. Yours truly,
Vanita Goela
Counsel
Public Law Section

JCT: I'm going to get paragraphs 166 and 170 into the
Supreme Court of Canada whether it's on a simple Order or
whether I have to include the whole Judgment. Surely the
Court would question why you wouldn't want the issue at bar
to be included on the Order.

Yours truly,
John C. Turmel


JCT: So now we sit back and find out whether the
government's going to look silly and force a hearing over
how paragraphs 166 and 170 are going to be reflected in the
Order. I've got better things to do in preparing my upcoming
Big Seven applications for leave to appeal.

Proposed new order:
-------------------

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 AND J.J. MARC PAQUETTE
Applicants
(Appellants)


- and -

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent
(Respondent)



ORDER



THIS APPEAL by John C. Turmel and J.J. Marc Paquette for a

declaration A) that the prohibition on the possession of

marijuana in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act 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 was heard on July 29, 30, and 31 2003 at Osgoode Hall,

130 Queen Street West, Toronto, and judgment having been reserved

until this day,


ON READING the material filed by the parties and on hearing the

submissions of John C. Turmel, appearing in person, and counsel

for Her Majesty the Queen,



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

and immediately constitutionally valid and of full force and

effect.


3. THIS COURT ORDERS that the appeal of John C. Turmel and J.J.

Marc Paquette is hereby dismissed without costs.

_________________________________
(Signature of Judge or Registrar)


JCT: Or the second more explicit new order


1. THIS COURT ORDERS that the declarations of invalidity remove

the single unconstitutional barrier to eligibility and sufficient

barriers to supply that ATP holders will be reasonably able to

meet their medical needs from licit sources. As a result, the

MMAR as modified become a constitutionally sound medical

exemption to the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 of the CDSA.

2. THIS COURT ORDERS that there will immediately be a

constitutionally valid exemption in effect and the marihuana

prohibition in s. 4 of the CDSA will immediately be

constitutionally valid and of full force and effect. In R. v.

Parker, supra, this court declared the prohibition invalid as of

July 31, 2001 if by that date the Government had not enacted a

constitutionally sound medical exemption. Our decision in this

case confirms that it did not do so. Hence the marihuana

prohibition in s. 4 has been of no force or effect since July 31,

2001. Since the July 8, 2003 regulation did not address the

eligibility deficiency, that alone could not have cured the

problem. However, our order has the result of constitutionalizing

the medical exemption created by the Government. As a result, the

marihuana prohibition in s. 4 is no longer inconsistent with the

provisions of the Constitution. Although Parliament may

subsequently choose to change it, that prohibition is now no

longer invalid, but is of full force and effect. Those who

establish medical need are simply exempted from it. This

consequence removes the cloud of uncertainty from the marihuana

prohibition in s. 4 of the CDSA - a cloud which we were told in

argument has created very considerable confusion for courts and

law enforcement agencies alike.

3. THIS COURT ORDERS that the appeal of John C. Turmel and J.J.

Marc Paquette is hereby dismissed without costs.

_________________________________
(Signature of Judge or Registrar)




--
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