JCT: Charbonneau? What's Charbonneau? some may ask? The last
post about the "superfluous" Charbonneau appeal were:

918 Factum for Charbonneau appeal 7/16
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/medpot/message/918

923 Crown Factum for Charbonneau Appeal 7/18
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/medpot/message/923

958 #E Big Five Marijuana Appeals: Charbonneau & Aitken 8/8
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/medpot/message/958

999 #8 Big Five Appeals: Pitt, Charbonneau, Aitken 10/18
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/medpot/message/999

This was the fifth, less heralded, appeal that I had going
on in my Big Five Appeals. Remember that there was the
appeal of:
1) Justice Chapnik by Terry Parker
2) Justice Lederman by Terry Parker
3) Justice Lederman by John Turmel & Marc Paquette
4) Justice Charbonneau by Parker, Turmel, Paquette
5) Justice Aitken by John Turmel

It's my two applications for leave to appeal Lederman and
Aitken that were sleazed out of the Supreme Court of Canada
by the Registrar and one judge. The Charbonneau appeal
wasn't pushed higher because, as the Court ruled and I never
published:

Date: 200310097
DOCKET: C39653

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE: TERRANCE PARKER AND JOHN TURMEL AND MARC J.J. PAQUETTE
(Appellants) - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent)

BEFORE: DOHERTY, GOUDGE AND SIMMONS, JJ.A.

COUNSEL: Terrance Parker in person
John C. Turmel in person
Marc J.J. Paquette (submissions in writing)
Croft Michaelson and Christopher Leafloor and
Vanita Goela for the respondent


HEARD: July 30 2003

ENDORSEMENT


[1] Charbonneau J. was correct to dismiss these appellants'
application dated February 10 2003. The relief sought in
that application was exactly the same as the relief sought
in the prior applications brought by these appellants, which
were heard by Lederman J. and disposed of by him on January
9 2003.

[2] All the issues in the February 10 2003 application were
or could have been raised before Lederman J.

[3] The appeal is dismissed.

JCT: Of course, the issue is not whether the issues were
raised before Lederman but whether he dealt with them which
the Court of Appeal notes in its decision that Lederman did
not!

Here, they'd attached the Hitzig case to Parker and the
judge spoke to the Hitzig request to fix the MMAR and not
the Parker request to have the law declared dead. The Parker
ruling contained Hitzig stuff and no Parker stuff. I even
had Parker ask Lederman to strike the Hitzig stuff from his
decision which would have left it empty. Har har har har.
Lederman refused.

The real issue is when the judge has not dealt with the
issue, must applicants wait while an appeal of the non-
decision goes higher or can they apply to a new court to
deal with an as yet unresolved issue by demonstrating it had
been unresolved?

Yet, the point is that the issue that was not dealt with by
Lederman and was also not dealt with by Charbonneau, was
raised before the Court of Appeal in both Lederman and
Charbonneau appeal. All can be appealed higher.

Let's say they had thrown out our Lederman appeal because
Lederman had not dealt with the issue and they say we have
to have a ruling on the issue before we can appeal and since
here, Lederman he did not rule on the issue, we have to go
back to the lower court to get a ruling which can then be
appealed. We could say: We did, right away, to Charbonneau,
right away. And he said no. He should have said yes. So we
have appealed.

I'm not saying that this is valid argument but since when
has having to be valid stood in the way of the Crown's
theories about why the law was still alive while it was dead
for Parker's 26 law-free months. They make up things as they
go. Fascinating transcripts of legal thought.

But I did appeal Charbonneau just to cover all bases. And
now, since it raised the same issues as before Lederman, and
since Alan Young's Hitzig case damages what we should have
won via Charbonneau as much as it damaged what we won via
Lederman (the court did rule the law had been dead since
Terry Parker Day even if they gave the credit in the Hitzig
and J.P. cases), I can challenge the Hitzig decision via the
Charbonneau appeal just like the Lederman appeal.

So, I'm going to file my application late to the SCC against
the Charbonneau decision "in forma pauperis" at the same
time as I re-file my Lederman and Aitken applications late
again.

Even if the Registry tries to stop the pauper's re-filed
late applications because the first were abandoned as being
late, they can't stop the third, the Charbonneau appeal,
which raises the same questions and rights as the Lederman
appeal did! Har har har har. They thought they'd knocked me
out of the ring at the top and now I'm coming back with
three more at them, numbers 14, 15 and 16.

But first, I needed a proper signed two-page Charbonneau
Appeal Order to go with the two-page judgment. In the old
days, the judgment, yea, the endorsement, was enough. Not
any more.

I had been trying to get Terry Parker his Lederman Appeal
Order without having to file for a $90 hearing like I did
for mine and Marc Paquette's. We'd made a couple of calls to
Vanita Goela because Terry wanted his Lederman Appeal Order
to print his request to have the law declared dead on Aug. 1
2001 just like it's printed on my Lederman Appeal Order. But
she has insisted that it simply state that his application
was dismissed without stating what he had asked for like the
Registrar put in mine.

Terry wants to be able to point to the J.P. and Hitzig
decisions where the court admits the law had been dead after
Terry Parker Day 2001 as proof that it is what he asked for
too. Since I can point at my Order as proof I asked for what
the court did note in the Hitzig and J.P. decisions, without
having to prove they did not ask, Terry should be able to
have the relief he sought stated in his order too. I have no
doubt the Registry will do the same for him as they did for
me. I had threatened to file a hearing before the Registrar
to the same wording that I got, an almost cinch, but the
Crown has been stalling.

I now asked for my Charbonneau Order so that Parker could
come before the Registrar for his Lederman Order with me.

June 7 2005

Terrance Parker
2209-55 Triller
Toronto, M6R 2H6
Tel: 416-533-7756 Fax: 416-533-7703

J.J. Marc Paquette,
A-162 Atlantic Ave,,
Hawkesbury, K6A 1V5,
Tel: 613-636-2177 Fax: 613-632-6122

Vanita Goela
Legal Counsel, Public Law Section
Ontario Regional Office, Department of Justice
Exchange Tower, 130 King St. W. #3400
Toronto ON M5X 1K6
Tel: 416-952-6993 Fax: 416-952-0298

Re: OCA Court File No: C39653 Charbonneau Appeal

Dear Ms. Goela, Terry, Marc:

Could you please sign the copy of the Order which says
"approved as to form and content" after filling in the date
and then mail it to me.

Terry's been trying to get his official Order for his #39738
appeal like we got out Turmel-Paquette #39740 appeal Order
but has had no response from Vanita in the past month so
he'll probably have to file a hearing before the registrar
like I had to do last time to do the very same thing.

If Ms. Goela hasn't approved my order for the Charbonneau
ruling by this next week, I'll file hearings before the
registrar for both Terry's and our Orders to be decided.
__________________________________
John C. Turmel

JCT: Terry and I got a letter from James Gorham:

Department of Justice, Ontario Regional Office,
Exchange Tower, 130 King St. W. #3400 Box 36
Toronto ON M5X 1K6
Tel: 416-954-2929 Fax: 416-952-0298
Email: jgorham@...

Our File: 2-493443-1

June 16 2005

VIA REGULAR MAIL

TERRANCE PARKER
2209-55 Triller Ave.
Toronto ON M6R 2H6

JOHN C TURMEL
8-37 Colborne St. E.,
Brantford ON N3T 2G3,
Tel/fax: 519-753-0645

Dear Sirs:

Re: Parker v HMQ
Court File No: C39738

I am in receipt of Mr. Parker's letter dated May 25, 2005
and Mr. Turmel's letter dated June 7 2005, both concerning
the Order of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Court File No.
C39738.

Please be advised that I will respond to your correspondence
in due course, and we sincerely hope that this matter can be
resolved without further recourse to the Registrar of the
Court of Appeal. In the interim, any further correspondence
concerning this matter can be made to my attention.
Yours truly,
James Gorham
Legal Counsel, Public Law Section

JCT: I wrote back:

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

June 18

James Gorham
Legal Counsel, Public Law Section
Ontario Regional Office, Department of Justice
Exchange Tower, 130 King St. W. #3400
Toronto ON M5X 1K6
Tel: 416-954-2929 Fax: 416-952-0298
Email: jgorham@...

Re: OCA Court File No: C39653 Charbonneau Appeal

Dear Mr. Gorham,

In your letter dated June 16 2005, you mention the Order
Terry Parker is seeking in C39738 for the Lederman decision
but failed to mention the Order being sought in C39653 for
the Charbonneau decision.

You say you'll deal with our requests to approve the form
and content of our orders in due course. Considering Terry
first wrote to you in May, I think due course better be
pretty soon.

As for my Charbonneau Order, there was a mistake in the
original draft wherein I forgot to mention the date of the
hearing and location. Enclosed is a new from Order page to
replace the others I sent.

Could you please sign the copy of the Order which says
"approved as to form and content" after filling in the date
and then mail it to me. If I have not had a response within
a week, we will both file for a hearing before the
registrar.
__________________________________
John C. Turmel

Cc: Terrance Parker
2209-55 Triller, Toronto, M6R 2H6
Tel: 416-533-7756 Fax: 416-533-7703
J.J. Marc Paquette,
A-162 Atlantic Ave, Hawkesbury, K6A 1V5,
Tel: 613-636-2177 Fax: 613-632-6122

Court File No: C39653
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
The Honourable Mr. Justice Doherty )
The Honourable Mr. Justice Goudge ) Tuesday
The Honourable Madam Justice Simmons ) Oct 7 2003
BETWEEN:
TERRANCE PARKER & JOHN TURMEL & MARC PAQUETTE
Applicants-Appellants
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent

ORDER

THIS APPEAL of the judgment of Mr. Justice Charbonneau dated
Feb 14 2003 which dismissed the Appellant's application for
an Order declaring that the declaration of invalidity on the
prohibition on the possession of marijuana in the Controlled
Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) by the Ontario Court of
Appeal in R. v. Parker [2000] took effect on Aug. 1 2001 and
is no longer known at law was heard on July 30 2003 at
Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen St. West, Toronto, and judgment
having been reserved until this day,

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

THIS COURT ORDERS that the appeal is hereby dismissed with
no order made as to costs.
_________________________________
(Signature of Judge or Registrar)


JCT: James Gorham responds:

Department of Justice, Ontario Regional Office,
Exchange Tower, 130 King St. W. #3400 Box 36
Toronto ON M5X 1K6
Tel: 416-954-2929 Fax: 416-952-0298
Email: jgorham@...

Our File: 2-493443-1

June 23 2005

VIA REGULAR MAIL

John C. Turmel, B. Eng.,
8-37 Colborne St. E.,
Brantford ON N3T 2G3,
Tel/fax: 519-753-0645

Re: Parker, Turmel and Paquette v HMTQ
Court File No: C39653

Thank you for your letter dated June 18 2005 clarifying your
earlier request for approval of the form and content of a
Draft Order in the above noted matter.

I have reviewed your draft Order and will respond by
proposing a new draft Order incorporating some minor
changes. I will circulate the new draft Order for your
approval early next week. At that time, we will also seek
approval of Mr. Parker and Mr. Paquette.

I trust that our draft Order will be acceptable to all
parties.
Yours truly,
James Gorham,
Legal Counsel, Public Law Section

Cc: Terrance Parker and J.J. Paquette

JCT: They want to have the Department of Justice's name on
the back of the order instead of mine. But this time, I
think I'll hold out for my name. When it gets back to me
with his minor changes, and they'd better not be too major,
I'll then submit his identical wording back to him but with
only my name changed on the back of the Order page.

Then I file the Pauper's Triple Applications for leave to
appeal Lederman, Aitken, Charbonneau at the Supreme Court of
Canada.

I might also sue the Supreme Court of Canada Registrar in
Small Claims Court for the fees I lost when they erroneously
declared the application abandoned for being late of a
pauper who can't be late! Wouldn't that look good on them.
Being sued for $500 for the $200 in fees, $300 in print
costs and delivery on cases.

I just have to answer that Section 59(4) says paupers don't
need permission to be late and point out I lost my money on
the grounds I was late. Let them explain their own rules.
What neat vengeance. Cute enough to make the news.

Two Supreme Court applications on two most important cases
in the country thrown out on frivolous technicalities that
turn out to be wrong. I could have a lot of fun with that
eventual transcript.

And I'll be in Ottawa to file the Triple Applications soon;
And I'll be in Ottawa to file the Certiorari (should be in a
higher court) to get my 3.3K its proper life sentence trial
into Superior Court;
So I'll have many reasons to go to Ottawa and the Small
Claims Court is oh so very close.



--
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