[continued

32. On April 1 2004, John Turmel demanded the Attorney
General redress the injustice done to those convicted under
the invalid sections with no result.
Authority#3: 2004 Apr 01 Turmel to A.G. for 100,000 more

33. On Sep 16 2004, On Sep 16 2004, after Applicant sought
an Order that reflected the issue being appealed that
"prohibition is now no longer invalid, but is of full force
and effect" Justice Doherty refused to include the words
"prohibition is now no longer invalid, but is of full force
and effect" in the Order relegating it to mere opinion.

34. On November 16 2005, Krieger Crown Attorney Scott Couper
testified in the application to quash of Max Cornelssen in
Alberta that the Alberta Court of Appeal declined to
entertain the application by Krieger lawyer Adriano
Iovinelli to have the interim stay on the Acton invalidation
lifted (after it had already lapsed once the Court of Appeal
became functus officio) even though Iovinelli had sworn the
court had dealt with and dismissed his application.

PART II - QUESTIONS IN ISSUE

35. A) Is the daily genocide of 4 Canadian epileptics of
sufficient importance for leave to be granted?

36. B) Can one Ontario Court of Appeal resurrect penal
statutes which have been repealed by another Court of
Appeal? by the Alberta Court of Appeal?

37. C) Can one Court of Appeal add words to misquote the
decision of another Court of Appeal?

38. D) Did the CDSA turn off, on, off again?

39. E) Can a slashed but unrepealed MMAR save the CDSA?

40. F) Must the Attorney General correct bogus convictions?
PART III - STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT

41. A) Is genocide of epileptics of national importance? The
genocide of 4 Canadian epileptics per day since the Ontario
Court of Appeal ruled that marijuana prohibition violated
the rights of epileptics in Aug 2001 adds up to failure to
prevent 6000 unnecessarily dead Canadians. This case
"Hitzig" had been cited in Martin's Criminal Code. It's
important.

42. The Courts below have ruled that the statistics of
epileptic death rates we presented were not medical
evidence. Without the medical evidence, they couldn't help
with the death going on. Applicant submits that the
statistic of 4 of 400,000 known Canadian epileptics who die
each and every day due to the prohibition of the best herbal
anti-seizure medication in the world is sufficient medical
evidence to warrant the conclusion that the right to life of
all those corpses has been violated, regardless of how their
right to liberty and security have been treated.

43. Despite the Court being informed by the applicant, whose
degree in applied science assured the conclusion that
exempting only 40 of Canada's 400,000 epileptics and
continuing to prohibit access to the other 99.99% would
barely affect the 4-a-day death rate, the court chose to
announce that they had done Parliament's job and resurrected
the prohibition so epileptics can still be busted for
possessing marijuana. As of Oct 7 2004 when this Application
was filed, 1 year since the ultra vires legislation was
resurrected, that's 1500 known epileptics who had seizures
without having access to the best anti-seizure medicine in
the world. Those judges are responsible. The Supreme Court
judges can accept continued responsibility for all those
corpses or the Supreme Court can end the genocide of
Canada's epileptics; and the genocide of all other Canadians
whose lives could be extended by instant access to the
world's best natural herbal medication.

44. B) Can Ontario Court resurrect repealed penal statutes?
The Ontario Court of Appeal in Parker Ordered "the marijuana
prohibition in s.4 of the CDSA to be invalid." The Ontario
Court of Appeal in Hitzig added the "absent" and concluded
that "prohibition is now no longer invalid, but is of full
force and effect" which lower courts are enforcing.
Applicant submits Parliament Only Legislates, Courts Only
Abrogate. The Applicant submits that Courts cannot unrepeal
invalid legislation. The prohibition on marijuana possession
in s.4 was repealed by the Ontario Court of Appeal and the
s.7 prohibition of cultivation was repealed by the Alberta
Court of Appeal. Parliament has never re-legislated a new
prohibition after July 31 2001 nor can the new Parliament do
so until they have crafted a workable medical exemption to
go with it for Canada's 400,000 epileptics.
Authority #4: Schacter v. Canada page 3

45. On Jan 2 2003, Ontario Judge Phillips in Windsor wrote
persuasively in R. v. J.P.:
"[7] It is submitted by the Applicant therefore, that
Rosenberg, J. A.'s judgment had the effect of declaring
invalid the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 (1) effective
on July 31, 2001 - twelve months after the release of
the reasons in R. v. Parker. It is therefore argued that
in keeping with s. 2(2) of the Interpretation Act(2),
the enactment was deemed repealed.
[8] The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act was not
amended by Parliament, and no prohibition on the simple
possession of marihuana has been re-enacted(4).
[22] Simple possession of marihuana in s. 4(1) of the
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act was struck down by
the Court of Appeal. But the Court of Appeal went
further in identifying whose task it was to address a
remedy, writing: "...this is a matter within the
legislative sphere. There is also a particular problem
in the case of marihuana because of a lack of a legal
source for the drug. This raises issues that can only be
adequately addressed by Parliament."
[23] Repeatedly Rosenberg J. A. returns to the theme of
Parliamentary authority to address the remedy:..(8)
<<<<Note 8) Throughout the Parker dicta, reference is
made to the need to legislate by Parliament. Parliament
was repeatedly identified as the body competent to
create such a framework, not the Government. Rosenberg
J. A. must be taken to have known the difference between
Parliament and the Government.>>>>
Authority #5: R. v. J.P. pages 2,5,6

46. From the Attorney General's Appellants Factum in R. v.
Parker [2000], Crown Attorneys Roslyn Levine QC and Kevin
Wilson wrote:
80. In the present case the judicial intrusion goes to
the very core of the relevant legislative power.
Parliament's legislative authority over criminal law is,
at its most basic, the power to decide whether or not
particular kinds of conduct should be criminalized. The
trial judge, in purporting to lift the criminal sanction
for certain specific drug offences, is therefore, in
effect, legislating criminal law.
Authority #6: Crown Factum in Parker page 37

47. Applicant submits that the the Court of Appeal judges
purporting to re-impose repealed criminal sanctions is even
more objectionable.

48. In the R. v. Nielsen case mentioned, Turmel posts titled
"Nielsen transcript of Edward quash hearing" at
http://yahoogroups.com/group/medpot/message/1870 cite Judge
Edward who posed two questions on the resurrection of the
s.4 prohibition:
"1) How can the Ontario Court of Appeal overrule itself
and make a statute that's been declared invalid valid
again.
3) Can a court resurrect a legislative provision that
has been struck down as a violation of the rights in the
Charter?"

49. The Crown responded that he could find no such power but
that they wouldn't have if they couldn't have so they can
and that Judge Edward was bound by stare decisis to obey. He
dismissed the motion to quash and ordered Applicants to
stand trial. Finally, the Crown cites the Malmo-Levine case
at the Supreme Court of Canada which concludes that
parliament had the authority to impose, as a matter of
policy, criminal sanctions on the possession of marijuana.
Applicant agrees but notes that Parliament never used that
power to re-enact S.7 after it was struck down by Krieger in
2002.

50. Can Ontario Court impose penal sanctions for all Canada?
The Alberta Court of Appeal agreed that the prohibitions on
marijuana in s.7 and s.4 of the CDSA were unconstitutional
and "as matters now stand s.7(1) has been declared of no
force and effect by the highest court in Alberta." Applicant
submits that the Ontario Court of Appeal's operations on
repealed bodies of legislation have not resurrected the
prohibitions struck down by the Parker and Krieger courts.
Only Canada's Parliament can re-impose those prohibitions
once the danger has been newly proven to those of us now
liberated from an irrational policy.
51. C) Can one Court of Appeal add words to misquote the
decision of another Court of Appeal? The Court of Appeal in
"Parker I" did not write that "the prohibition in s.4 is
invalid absent a working medical exemption." Applicant's
Appendix 1 shows the Order of the Court of Appeal dated July
31 2000 wrote that "the prohibition in s.4 is invalid." It
does not have an "Absent a constitutionally acceptable
medical exemption" condition. These phrases are not in the
original Order but improperly added by the second Court of
Appeal before misquoting.

52. When Justices Phillips, Rogin and Chen made their
decisions, they were faced with the Order in Parker I that
S.4 "is invalid." Not that S.4 "is invalid absent an
exemption." The second Court of Appeal added the "absent"
Off-On switch to the first court's Order after the findings
of the lower courts and then used their own mis-represented
version of the Parker I order to criticize those lower court
findings. Ontario Provincial Judge Phillips, B.C. Provincial
Judge Chen and Ontario Superior Court Justice Rogin were
correct and the Ontario Court of Appeal are not correct
despite the J.P. case not being appealed to the Supreme
Court. Judge Phillips in J.P. deemed the S.4 prohibition to
have been repealed pursuant to Parliament's Interpretation
Act. Justice Rogin deemed it to have been repealed too.
Judge Chen deemed the prohibition nullified and not
resuscitatable. But the Parker-Hitzig and J.P. Court of
Appeal disagreed saying statutes that have been invalidated
can be turned back on years later. Like they just did.

53. D) Did the CDSA turn off, on, off again? From the appeal
court's decision in R. v. J.P.:
[33] There was no need to amend or re-enact s.4 of the
CDSA to address the constitutional problem in Parker.
That problem arose from the absence of a
constitutionally adequate medical exemption. As our
order in Hitzig demonstrates, the prohibition against
possession of marihuana in s.4 is in force when there is
a constitutionally acceptable medical exemption in
force.
Authority #7: R. v. J.P. Court of Appeal page 14

54.The Appellant submits that the prohibition does not turn
on and off when there is and isn't a constitutionally
acceptable medical exemption in force. Once the statute has
been turned off, only direct enactment by Parliament can
turn it back on. Applicant herein relies on the same
reasoning made by all those provincial judges who followed
S.2(2) of the Interpretation Act. Applicant agrees that the
court's order may have made the marihuana prohibition no
longer inconsistent with the Charter, but there is a
difference between the declaration and the effect. The s.4
prohibition was rendered no longer inconsistent with the
Charter, two years too late. The s.4 prohibition was still
no longer known to law since it became unknown to law after
July 31 2001. It became a nullity and could not be
resuscitated.

55. Applicant cites S.2(2) of the Interpretation Act that
"an enactment that has ceased to have effect is deemed to
have been repealed." The Crown cites the Ontario Court of
Appeal that an enactment that has ceased to have effect is
only absent and can be turned back on. Thus, since Aug. 1
2001, absent a working medical exemption, the prohibition
was absent. Then, once the MMAR was fixed by the Court of
Appeal by striking down 5 unconstitutional exemption
conditions on Oct 7 2003, the exemption was no longer absent
and the prohibition was turned back on. Then, once two of
the unconstitutionally condemned conditions were re-enacted
two months later by Health Canada on Dec 3 2003, absent the
working medical exemption again, the prohibition was turned
off again. The Crown has admitted but failed to address the
fact that the medical exemption was rendered no longer
constitutional again by the re-enactment of the two
unconstitutional sections. This is silly.

56. So not only does the Parker II Court of Appeal not have
any power to switch the prohibition back on by correcting
the "absence" of medical exemption but there is no "absent a
medical exemption" switch to be turned on in the original
order cited. The Interpretation Act has to be right or
courts could be resurrecting other legislation too. If
correcting the underlying reason for the invalidation of the
prohibition statute which made the exemption absent can be
done by the courts, the underlying reason for the
invalidation of the death penalty laws that hanging is cruel
an unusual violation of rights could be negated by accepting
that lethal injection is not and the prohibition turns back
on. If "absent an acceptable medical exemption," the
prohibition on marijuana turns off and then on two years
later without any input from Parliament, why not "absent an
acceptable method of execution," capital punishment turns
off and back on 30 years later without any input from
Parliament?"

57. E) Can a slashed but unrepealed MMAR save the CDSA? The
Applicant submits that the Court, in sustaining Carthy's
refusal to extend the suspension by Lederman, pronounced the
MMAR officially repealed. Then in October, the Court
announced operations on the officially dead MMAR which had
resulted in a newly resurrected MMAR to then newly resurrect
the CDSA prohibition. Can the court strike down some parts
of a law that was struck down 3 months before? Applicant
submits that cutting out the worse parts that caused the
repeal of the legislation could not result in an unrepealed
MMAR. No one has ever un-repealed the MMAR after the
Lederman suspension had lapsed so it could never have saved
the CDSA prohibitions.

58. F) Must the Attorney General correct bogus convictions?
Is it the duty of the Attorney General to release all
remaining prisoners and expunge all convictions registered
since marijuana prohibitions in s.4 and s.7 were invalid:
a) from Aug 1 2001 to Oct 7 2003; from Dec. 3 2003 until now
if it is accepted that courts can make new penal law;
b) from Aug. 1 2001 to today if courts cannot make new law.

59. The Applicant submits that the Attorney General staying
the charges against 4000 innocent Canadians to keep their
names on the docket is only the tip of the iceberg. This has
to be a Guinness Record judicial snafu which the Court of
Appeal seems to have helped cover up with its resurrection
shuffle. The Supreme Court of Canada is the last resort to
correct this injustice.

60. After the Parker Court Ordered "the marijuana
prohibition in s.4 of the CDSA to be invalid" Applicant
lived without the chains of prohibition for over 2 years.
The Applicant submits any opinion of the court that
"prohibition is now no longer invalid, but is of full force
and effect" that results in the deaths of 4 epileptics a day
cannot be constitutional. Who do these judges think they are
that they should re-impose chains on me without the approval
of my Member of Parliament? I will bow to Parliament's
legislation but not to the court's resurrected corpse. Such
an abuse of the powers of the court leaves no other option
than plugging up the courts with defences based on the
grounds that Parliament Only Legislates and Courts Only
Abrogate. Ontario Courts especially do not legislate for
Alberta.

61. David Frankel continued Iovinelli's contention that the
interim stay continues after the Court of Appeal became
functus officio but if the stay really survived the appeal,
an application to lift it was made. Since the stay did not
exist still, the court declined to entertain such a
ridiculous notion. The Ministry of Justice knows interim
stays do not survive when the court became functus officio
and that the marijuana prohibitions in S.7 (and by
implication S.4) of the CDSA had been declared of no force
and effect by the highest court in Alberta on Dec 04 2002
and did not so inform Canada's police services.
App.6: 2003 May 16 S. David Frankel culpability clause

62. The Ministry of Justice did not amend the Criminal Code
to reflect the Krieger abrogation by the highest court in
Alberta as it has amended the Code to reflect the Parker
abrogation by the highest court in Ontario nor did the
Ministry instruct Law Enforcement to cease charging
Canadians under the invalid statutes. Deliberately. And the
Crown continues to yet disrespect the Alberta Court of
Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada Orders by continuing to
newly victimize approximately 160 new Canadians every day.

63. Crown Attorneys who should know better have advised
police to keep prosecuting Canadians under this judge-
legislated penal sanction. The charges laid under the
invalid statute should have been withdrawn, not stayed, but
keeping the names of the innocent on the docket made it
sound like a lucky glitch in the law so they could avoid
having to apologize to their victims for their errors. With
over 100,000 Canadians improperly charged and the whole mess
covered up by the Crown and the courts, this is the biggest
judicial screw-up in Canadian history. And the Attorney
General did not inform the 100,000 Canadians who convicted
before the courts found out the prohibition had been invalid
for 2 years that their convictions were improper and has
left all their records improperly stained by those
convictions.

64. When the highest courts in Canada affirm a ruling which
strikes down an unconstitutional violation of a Charter
right and the courts then see that ruling ignored by the
Attorney General and that invalid statute enforced against
an unsuspecting populace, it has to be the duty of the
courts to see that their Orders are obeyed? If not, who else
can tackle such renegade elements in the Ministry of
Justice?

65. The Ministry of the Attorney General is culpable of
mischief and genocide, after all, it did involve denying
dying patients who needed access to cannabis such access on
the basis of the enforcement of invalid statutes. 6000 extra
dead epileptics since they could have all had a joint in
their possession to protect them from seizures.

PART IV - SUBMISSIONS ON COSTS

66. Applicant has devoted over 5 years to the abolition of
the prohibition of the safest best herbal medication on the
planet and the maximum allowed would be appreciated.
PART V - ORDER SOUGHT

67. Applicant seeks leave to appeal the Oct 7 2003 judgment
of the Ontario Court of Appeal for:

1) an Order overturning the court's opinion which has been
deemed by lower courts to resurrect the prohibition on
cannabis in s.4(1) of the CDSA and declaring that the
prohibition on marijuana remains repealed since Aug. 1 2002,
Terry Parker Day;

2) Order of Mandamus compelling the Attorney General for
Canada to withdraw all current s.4(1) prosecutions.

3) Order of Mandamus compelling the Attorney General to
release all prisoners and expunge all convictions registered
under s.4(1) of the CDSA since:
a) the Charter was enacted; or
b) Aug 1 2000 when the section was deemed unconstitutional;
or
c) Aug 1 2001 when the section was deemed repealed.

Dated at Toronto Ontario on Nov 25 2005

____________________________
Applicant:
Terrance Parker
2209-55 Triller Ave.
Toronto, Ontario, M6R-2H6
Tel/fax: 416-533-7756/7703
Email: terryparkerjr@...

For the Respondent:
Robert Frater
2311-284 Wellington St.
Ottawa, K1A 0H8
Tel: 613-957-4763, Fax: 613-941-7865
Email: robert.frater@...



--
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