http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/com/2004/html/04-05-06.3a.wpd.html

DISMISSED WITHOUT COSTS

Warren Hitzig, et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)
(Crim.) (30120)
JCT: Isn't it fascinating that Wrong-Way Alan Young did his
Hitzig application in civil court under civil rules but the
Supreme Court of Canada knew that it should have been in
Criminal Court and still put it there.

The application for an extension of time is granted and the
application for leave to appeal is dismissed without costs.
Coram: McLachlin / Major / Fish

JCT: Here's the fun point. In reading Burstein's Bowzer, the
judges had to notice Parker, Turmel and Paquette's role in
the decision.

Now understand that two out of the three judges, Major and
Fish, have had a Turmel case or two before. I've only ever
argued Ace cases, I've never argued a nag, and they usually
don't forget them and they've usually heard about the other
Turmel Ace cases that the other judges of their courts have
had to face before.

I can't imagine any Appellate Ontario, Quebec, or Federal
Court judge who hasn't heard about at least 10 of my
hundreds of cases.

Of course, since the judges have to live near the Supreme
Court in Ottawa where the Ottawa newspapers suppressed the
news, these three judges may not have heard about my being
busted on Parliament Hill with 3.3Kg of marijuana. Then
again, it only took one judge to hear about the bust on the
CTV national evening news. Then, when they looked for the
story in the Ottawa Citizen, Sun and Le Droit and noticed it
wasn't there, they must have wondered how Ottawa Mayoral
candidate getting charged with a life-sentence worth of
marijuana on Parliament Hill didn't make the local news but
would have found the story elsewhere from the May 15 2003
Globe & Mail, the Toronto Star or Quebec's Le Soleil. They
may have even heard of the Turmel's "Big Five" quintuple
appeals at the Ontario Court of Appeal: 1) Parker's Chapnik
appeal, 2) Parker's Lederman appeal, 3) Turmel-Paquette's
Lederman appeal, 4) Parker-Turmel-Paquette's Charbonneau
appeal and 5) Turmel's Aitken appeal. Our picture on the day
we first did combat in L'Orignal: http://www.medpot.net


It only took one judge to hear about it and all the
others certainly found out. So,

So here are Justices McLachlin, Major and Fish reading the
Hitzig judgment and they find out this is another John
Turmel case. I'm sure that Major and Fish have to be
wondering "What's going on, Turmel was one of the appellants
against Lederman, so where is he?"

And they're reading this totally ridiculous issue from Young
and Burstein for the Court to debate on national TV whether
provincial courts can supervise federal ministries when
Federal Act Section 18 gives sole jurisdiction over federal
ministries to the Federal Court.

Anyway, with the Hitzig detritus out of the way, we can move
forward on the big five appeals, plus appealing 6)
Paquette's Beaudry decision and 7) Turmel's Surprise

The Crown absolutely don't want to give Parker credit for
having killed the prohibition on Terry Parker Day in his Court
Order, unlike in the Hitzig Order. Right? An Order is
supposed to summarize the gist of what the judgment said.
The Hitzig Order mentioned that they applied to have the
MMAR access regulations fixed and that the Court fixed them.

I want the Parker Order to mention that he asked to have the
Court declare that that the Parker Court declaration of
invalidity (2000) had taken effect on Aug. 1 2001 and that
the Court did confirm that the Parker declaration had taken
effect and that the prohibition had died. Even if the Court
then said it was bringing it back to life. That's
appealable. But I want it on record that prohibition was
killed after July 31 2001 and see no reason our Order can't
say it like the Hitzig Order said what they did win. And the
Crown refuse and will force us to argue it before the court.

But you know how things work when they're fighting with The
Engineer. Here I am wondering what I can do to get around
the Crown's refusal to credit Parker with having asked for
what the court granted him and then took away. So we can
complain about about them taking away what they just gave
us.

Since we need to raise the issue in paragraphs 166 and 170,
we want what was in paragraph 166 and 170 in the Order. The
Crown do not. They want it recorded that we won nothing. And
if they don't give us our Order with Parker's name on it, it
forces us to use the judgment which the Court improperly
named Hitzig et al in the Parker appeal.

It will always be claimed that the Parker relief came from
within the Hitzig case (because Hitzig was linked to
Parker). We even had a judge official name all the appeals
Parker et al (and others) and the Court of Appeal took the
time to quietly countermand that Order in the back-rooms and
call it "Hitzig et al" by hearing everything backwards.
Which goes a long way to explain the backwardness of their
judgment. Getting the name backward too is only icing on
their "we insist on doing it all backwards" cake. I did
protest their doing it backwards and so we know that they
did it backwards on purpose. And probably got everything
backwards in their decision on purpose too. People don't
choose to do things backwards, and then screw it all up,
without some hidden motive.

Anyway, since it looks like the Crown and Courts aren't
going to let Parker's Lederman Appeal Order read what the
court said in paragraphs 166 and 170 of the "Hitzig et
Parker" decision, the part that referred to the Parker
application, I've had to look for another way.

So what have I found to get around the Crown's
intransigence? What other way is there to get a Court
Order for Parker to reflect that the prohibition died on
Aug. 1 2001?

I've found it. I'd have never found it if I hadn't had to
get around the Crown's intransigence. Now we have an extra
move possible. Can anyone guess what it is?



--
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