JCT: In 2000, the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Parker
declared the prohibition on marijuana in s.4(1) of the CDSA
to be invalid, suspended the decision one year to let the
government provide access and granted Terry a 1-year
constitutional exemption until his Health Canada exemption
arrived.
One year later, Health Canada's MMAR access regulations
didn't safety Parker so he sought a declaration that the
MMAR had failed to save on CDSA prohibition on time. The
Parker decision must have taken effect.
Two years later, the Ontario Court of Appeal agreed that the
MMAR had failed and that the law had become of no force and
effect. But they fixed the MMAR and say the law is now of
effect again.
Parker remains unexempted even after the courts legislative
amendments so the courts did no better than Health Canada
did at providing a workable exemption to Parker.
So Parker is appealing to the Supreme Court to challenge the
court's assertions that their corrections made the MMAR work
since Parker and the vast majority of Canadian epileptics
remain unprotected.

File Number: #31245
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
(ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO)
BETWEEN
Terrance Parker
Applicant
Appellant in appeal
AND
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Respondent in appeal

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
TERRANCE PARKER, APPLICANT
(Pursuant to Section 73 of the Supreme Court Rules)

TAKE NOTICE that Terrance Parker hereby applies to a judge
pursuant to section 73 of the Act for an Order:
a) declaring that pursuant to section 59(4) of the Act,
Section 58 time deadlines do not apply to applications for
leave to appeal in forma pauperis; or
b) granting an extension of time to file the application for
leave to appeal if section 59(4) does not apply.

AND FOR any Order abridging the time for service, filing, or
hearing of the motion, or amending any defect as to form or
content of the motion, or for any other Order the said judge
may deem appropriate.

AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that the said motion shall be made
on the following grounds:
a) Section 58 time deadlines do not apply to applications
for leave to appeal in forma pauperis pursuant to section
59(4) of the Supreme Court Act, or
b) that this is an appeal of a precedent set in Martin's
Criminal Code that is of national importance.
Dated at Toronto on May 5 2006.
___________________________
Applicant to the motion
Terrance Parker
2209-55 Triller Ave.
Toronto, Ontario, M6R-2H6
Tel/fax: 613.632.2334
Email: terryparkerjr@...

ORIGINAL TO: THE REGISTRAR
COPIES TO: the Respondent:
Croft Michaelson, Robert Frater
Department of Justice, 2311-284 Wellington St.
3400 - 130 King St. W. Ottawa, K1A 0H8
Toronto Ontario M5X 1K6 Tel: 613-957-4763,
Tel/f: 416-973-0392/952-2116 Fax: 613-941-7865
E: cmichael@... E: robert.frater@...

NOTICE TO THE RESPONDENT TO THE MOTION: A respondent to the
motion may serve and file a response to this motion within
10 days after service of the motion. If no response is filed
within that time, the motion will be submitted for
consideration to a judge.
If the motion is served and filed with the supporting
documents of the application for leave to appeal, then the
Respondent may serve and file the response to the motion
together with the response to the application for leave


AFFIDAVIT
TERRANCE PARKER, APPLICANT
(Pursuant to Section 73 of the Supreme Court Rules)

I, Terrance Parker, residing at 2209-55 Triller Ave. in
Toronto, Ontario, make oath as follow:

1. I qualify to apply for leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

2. On July 31 2000, in the Crown's appeal against my
acquittal, the Ontario Court of Appeal declared the
prohibition on marijuana in section 4(1) of the CDSA to be
invalid on the grounds prohibition of my anti-seizure
medication violated my right to life. The Court suspended
its decision one year to permit the government to issue
Marijuana Medical Access Regulations and granted me a
constitutional exemption for that year.

2. On July 30 2001, Health Canada issued the Marijuana
Medical Access Regulations. The Ontario Medical Association
advised my doctor not to sign. I remain unexempted.

3. On Mar 15 2002, my application for an Order to declare
that the Parker Declaration had taken effect after July 31
2001 or to extend my constitutional exemption was heard.
Ontario Superior Court Justice Romaine Pitt extended the
constitutional exemption to me by the Ontario Court of
Appeal "until the government has complied with the court's
ruling."

4. On Jan 9 2002, on my application for an Order to declare
that the Parker Declaration had taken effect after July 31
2001, Ontario Superior Court Justice Sidney Lederman
declared the Marijuana Medical Access Regulations had failed
to comply with Parker Court Order for a constitutionally
valid medical exemption.

5. On May 16 2002, Ontario Superior Court Justice Rogin in
R. v. J.P. ruled the MMAR had failed to comply with the
Parker by July 31 2001.

6. On Oct 7 2003, upon my appeal, the Ontario Court of
Appeal ruled that the Parker Court's invalidation of s.4(1)
had indeed taken effect in 2001 because MMAR had failed to
provide a constitutionally acceptable medical exemption by
July 31 2001.

7. But, at the same time on Oct 7, the Court of Appeal in
Hitzig ordered corrections said to fix the MMAR deficiencies
and opined that the two-year repealed legislation was now
back in force again.

8. On Oct 8 2002, the Crown stayed the invalid charges
rather than withdraw them against the remaining 4000 ongoing
prosecutions under section 4(1) in the two years between
Parker Day declaration of invalidity of the prohibition and
the Hitzig Day declaration of resurrection. No correction of
the criminal records of those convicted while the law was
invalid section has been ordered yet.
9. This decision, with that of R. v. Turmel were immediately
cited in the Criminal Code of Canada including the
resurrection of the previously repealed prohibition.

10. Since only Parliament can re-validate penal sanctions
once they have become of no force and effect pursuant to
section 2(2) of the Interpretation Act, an application for
leave to appeal the claimed resurrection by the Hitzig Court
of Appeal was filed by my co-appellant in the consolidated
"Parker, Hitzig et al, Turmel-Paquette v. HMTQ" appeals,
John Turmel. The Hitzig group also sought leave to appeal to
permit provincial courts to supervise the federal Health
Department which was rejected.

11. Despite all documentation having been filed for
adjudication by a panel in this most important cited
precedent, Justice Binnie dismissed the challenge as
abandoned for Turmel's being late in filing one document.

12. Co-Appellant Marc Paquette then filed an application for
leave to appeal which has been denied by the Registrar for
his association with Turmel's application which had been
aborted by Justice Binnie.

13. So I am the only Appellant from Canada's most important
marijuana consolidated appeals left to apply for leave to
appeal against the resurrection decision which has resulted
in the greatest atrocity in prosecutorial history, tens of
thousands of invalid prosecutions, right immediately after
the snafu of 4000 bogus charges that is already pretty bad.

14. This affidavit is made in support of a motion for an
Order
a) declaring that pursuant to section 59(4) of the Act,
Section 58 time deadlines do not apply to applications for
leave to appeal in forma pauperis; or
b) granting an extension of time to file the application for
leave to appeal if section 59(4) does not apply.
___________________________
Applicant to the motion
Terrance Parker
2209-55 Triller Ave.
Toronto, Ontario, M6R-2H6
Tel/fax: 613.632.2334
Email: terryparkerjr@...

Sworn before me at Toronto
on Friday May 5 2006
___________________________________
A COMMISSIONER, ETC.


STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF LEAVE TO APPEAL
TERRANCE PARKER, APPLICANT
(Pursuant to Section 73 of the Supreme Court Rules)

OVERVIEW:

1. That the majority of Canada's epileptic population
remain unexempted from prosecution by Health Canada's
Marijuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) proves the
continued failure of the legislation to remedy the violation
of the constitutional right Parker established was going
on by the prohibition of anti-epilepsy-seizure medicine.
Four per day continue to needlessly die for want of a joint.
This an issue of national importance.

FACTS:

2. Applicant won the declaration that the prohibition on
anti-epileptic-seizure medicine to be invalid, but suspended
one year though I received judicial protection.
3. When that protection expired, Applicant once again had
his right to life violated by the threat of prosecution for
two more years until the Court in J.P. accepted that the
prohibition had become of no force and effect after July 31
2001.

4. At the moment of discovery that the threat of prosecution
Applicant had lived under for two years was bogus and he had
been safe all along, the court announced they were amending
the legislation to resuscitate the prohibition against him.

5. It wouldn't be so bad if their fix of the MMAR had worked
but Parker's doctor continues to refuse to sign and the
majority of Canada's epileptics continue to remain
unexempted with their right to life violated despite the
Court of Appeal's best legislative efforts.

6. Challenges against the resurrection were filed by other
appellants but dismissed as abandoned without being
adjudicated. This is the Applicant's last chance to correct
the Court's legislative failure.

ISSUE

7. 1) Does section 58 apply to the application made pursuant
to section 59(4)? If not,

8. 2) Is the failure of the MMAR to exempt the majority of
Canada's epileptic population of sufficient national
importance to warrant extending the time to apply for leave?

ARGUMENT

9. 1) Applicant is a pauper. The Registrar's office has
never explained why section 59(4) of the Supreme Court Act
does not apply. Applicant reading of the section in English
leads to the conclusion that the time deadlines in section
58 do not apply to applications for leave to appeal in forma
pauperis pursuant.

10. 2) The Hitzig Court's corrections of the access
legislation have not solved the problem of Canada's
epileptics having their right to life violated. 4 known
epileptics per day, 1500 epileptics per year out of Canada's
400,000-strong known epileptic population continue to
needlessly perish every year for want of a joint to quell
their seizures as it quells those of Terrance Parker.

11. That Applicant still remains protected by the
constitutional exemption granted by Pitt J. is further proof
of the MMAR's failure to safety Canada's epileptic
population despite the court's well-intentioned amendments
to the legislation. This would explain why Applicant's first
Parker Court of Appeal stated in their ruling that adjusting
legislation should be left up to Parliament, not the courts.
Despite this warning, the Hitzig Court of Appeal did adjust
the legislation and their amendments to the legislated have
failed to help. Almost nothing has changed with the genocide
of epileptics going on.

11. This statement is made in support of a motion for an
Order
a) declaring that pursuant to section 59(4) of the Act,
Section 58 time deadlines do not apply to applications for
leave to appeal in forma pauperis; or
b) granting an extension of time to file the application for
leave to appeal if section 59(4) does not apply.

Dated at Toronto on May 5 2006.
___________________________
Applicant to the motion
Terrance Parker

JCT: So now we wait to see what happens.

In my case, the Registrar conned me into ceding my pauper
status without a ruling and asking for the extension of time
because it's unheard of to do what Justice Binnie with one
late document. Then he denied it.

This way, Parker gets to have a ruling by a judge on his
pauper's status and then a ruling, like I did, on the same
time extension.

So Terry is asking for his extension of time like I did but
he's also first asking for a ruling on his pauper's standing
like I did not. I just never expected that a judge of
Canada's highest court would disgrace himself by aborting an
appeal against the most important new precedent cited in the
Criminal Code over 1 document being filed late.

So Terry's getting both answers to both issues.

Stay tuned for the Crown's response in 10 days.



--
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