JCT: Today was the start of Terry's Section 24 application
for the return of a controlled substance, marijuana, seized
by Canada Post and turned over to the police who won't
charge Terry but won't give it back. Note that the Crown has
not denied that Canada Post searches the mail for marijuana.

Chris Leafloor for the Crown. Derek Francisco drove down to
support us. Dianne Bruce and several others including a
cousin of Terry's were also in attendance.

We were booked for the whole day but once again, the case
was just stuck in Room 307 on the judge's agenda and only
got started around noon. And the Judge Clements hadn't even
been given the documentation though the case had been
assigned to his court 3 months ago. Imagine. The registrar
hadn't even provided the judge with the documentation!

I started out with the motion to approve the way we wished
to tape-record the hearing pursuant to s.136. Chris
objected! I pointed out how Court of Appeal justices
Moldaver, Gillese, Weiler, Charron, Carthy, Simmons, Goudge
and Doherty had all approved, Justices Lederman and the
Registrar, Provincial Judge Belanger in Ottawa and all sorts
of judges. Clements pointed out the higher courts don't have
stenographers for transcripts, we do. I pointed out that the
costs for Terry were prohibitive and I'd used it in
transcripted courts too. Judge said he was refusing to
permit the taping but would order a copy of the transcript
for Terry. What could I say but thank you and sit down. Even
though transcripts take weeks and tapes can be enjoyed right
away.

Then I gave him the Terry Parker story. Judge Sheppard
granted sick people constitutional exemption against
cultivation and possession offences in 1997. The Crown only
appealed the possession exemption and lost though the Court
of Appeal changed Judge Sheppard's exemption against
possession to striking down the S.4 possession section and
said it would have struck down the cultivation section had
the Crown appealed it too. The Court of Appeal granted
Parker a constitutional exemption while it suspended the
invalidation one year.

Then I linked to the Krieger story 6 months later where
Judge Acton, abiding by the recommendation of the Parker
Court of Appeal, struck down the S.7 cultivation offence and
would have struck down the possession offence had it been
charged. That decision was suspended a year, the suspension
extended pending appeal which the Crown then lost. The I
explained how the Crown had been tricked out of applying for
continued suspension of the Acton decision pursuant to the
Supreme Court Act, now that the Alberta Court of Appeal had
become "functus officio" and lost all its power when Defence
rose to ask to have the stay (that had just expired) lifted.
The Court, knowing it had just expired, refused to entertain
the motion and the Crown, thinking that the stay still
needed to be lifted because the defence said so, did not
apply for a new stay pursuant to the Supreme Court Act. And
I handed up the Supreme Court of Canada note where they
dismiss the Crown's application for Leave to appeal while
noting how Judge Acton had struck Section 7 and been upheld
by the Court of Appeal!

Then I returned to the Parker story because Health Canada
had only issued him a government Section 56 6-month
exemption on Sep 15 2001 6 weeks after the Parker
invalidation had taken effect on Aug.1 2001. Before it
expired on March 15 2002, Parker applied to the Court of
Appeal for an extension of its criminal jurisdiction
exemption until the government had complied with the law.
Judge Clements jumped ahead to point out the Court of Appeal
had no jurisdiction. Yes, the Court replied Parker should
seek remedy below. That's why Parker applied to Superior
Court on 9 day's short notice (instead of 10) on the last
day of his exemption for an Order a) declaring that the
Court's invalidation of section 4 had taken effect on Terry
Parker Day or b) extending the constitution exemption
granted by the Court of Appeal until the government has
complied with the court's ruling.

Then I explained how the Crown hadn't shown up for the
hearing due to a screw-up in their office, an uppity
secretary who decided Terry hadn't served the documentation
properly and didn't pass it along. Terry had showed Justice
Pitt the Ontario Medical Association letter alerting Ontario
doctors not to participate in the MMAR and his Health Canada
S.56 exemption which was expiring that day . Justice Pitt
later did not grant the motion declaring the Parker
invalidation had taken effect given the magnitude of the
decision and that the Crown hadn't shown up but did grant
that the motion on short and ex parte to "extend the
constitutional exemption granted by the Ontario Court of
Appeal until the government has complied with the court's
ruling."

How it made the news that Parker was now protected for life.
But the Crown decided they didn't want to appeal and because
there was provision for setting aside judgments pursuant to
the civil rules of practice, rather than appeal, the Crown
asked the civil jurisdiction court to set aside Parker's
criminal jurisdiction protection.

I explained how the Crown introduced Professor Alan Young to
say a few words as a friend of the Court on Terry's behalf
and after the judge had asked Terry if he had any objection
and Terry did not, Young said he agreed with the Crown that
the Pitt decision should be set aside pursuant to the rules
of civil procedure and with both sides agreeing the Pitt
decision was an error, Justice Chapnik set Pitt's criminal
jurisdiction remedy aside pursuant to the civil rules of
practice since criminal rulings could not be set aside.

Then I explained that even though I reassured Parker that
only 3 judges of criminal jurisdiction could grant a Crown
appeal against the Pitt ruling, I also decided to try to
appeal via the civil rules in case and explained how I tried
to get a stay of Chapnik's removal of Parker's protection
pending appeal, refused, and applied for leave to appeal the
refusal of stay to the Supreme Court, refused.

Then how the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against
Chapnik using civil jurisdiction to set aside criminal
remedy and even agreed that the criminal remedy was properly
set aside with civil rules. I had to have been rolling my
eyes at some point.

Then I went into how Superior Justice Lederman later agreed
with Superior Justice Pitt that the MMAR had not complied
with the Parker court's ruling and how Superior Justice
Rogin later in Windsor also agreed and how the Court of
Appeal finally also agreed which resulted in the Crown
dropping charges against 4000 people in December 2003. Judge
Clements must remember the day when all the marijuana
charges before his court were withdrawn. He did. I also
reminded him of the convictions registered before his court
while the law was dead and how, rather than expunge those
wrong convictions, the Crown chose to hush it up.

I pointed out how Windsor Judge Phillips, Justice Rogin and
B.C. Judge Chen had all ruled that once the section were
ruled to be of no force and effect, invalid, the
Interpretation Act said they should be deemed repealed and
if repealed, only Parliament can re-enact new penal
statutes. Then I explained how the Hitzig Court ruled that
the Interpretation Act should be ignored because laws that
have been struck down weren't really repealed, only absent,
unsound, until fixed by the courts and brought back to live.
I pointed out that the resurrection by the courts is being
appealed in my prohibition appeal right now which will
finally reach the Supreme Court this year.

Then back to the Krieger cultivation strike down of the
Section 7 cultivation section. Even if everyone accepts that
the Alan Young's Hitzig decision nullified the Parker
court's invalidation of the possession offence, no one ever
nullified the Krieger court's invalidation of the
cultivation offence. And if cultivation offence is no longer
valid, by implication admitted by the Krieger Crown Frankel,
then the possession offence can't be either.

Finally, I referred to the recent Derek Francisco case where
he was granted the return of his marijuana by Justice Rhys-
Morgan despite having received his government exemption
after the bust so that his only reason at the time of the
bust was that he was legitimately sick and could qualify for
a Parker-Krieger exemption too.

If you can't get a government MMAR or S.56 exemption because
your doctor can't satisfactorily explain why it's needed to
the Health Canada pharmacist examiners, then the Hitzig
Court of Appeal said all you have to do is prove you're sick
to the court for a Parker-Krieger exemption. So:

1) Parker, as a recipient of Sheppard's 1997 constitutional
exemption against the cultivation offence, continues to
enjoy exemption from the cultivation and by implication,
possession offences ;
2) Parker, as a recipient of Pitt's 2002 extension of the
Court of Appeal's criminal jurisdiction exemption, continues
to enjoy exemption despite the Chapnik decision setting
Pitt's criminal remedy aside pursuant to civil rules of
procedure;
3) Parker, as a legitimately-proven sick person, enjoys
medical exemption with Krieger and Francisco as a function
of being sick despite no court or government exemption.
4) Parker has no need for an exemption to claim his
marijuana because S.7 and S.4 remain repealed without any
action by Parliament.

The problem ends up being that when we started the fight
many months ago, new stuff has arisen. Chris complained that
the Notice of Motion only mentioned the Pitt decision as the
grounds and did not mention Sheppard. I pointed out reliance
on Sheppard had been claimed in the last paragraph of
Terry's affidavit and the Notice could easily be amended.

Judge Clements asked him point blank: Are you saying I can't
look at the Sheppard decision? Chris hemmed and hawed but
finally had to admit "no."

Chris said that Sheppard only permitted Parker to cultivate,
not to possess. The judge asked if permit to cultivate
didn't mean permit to possess. Leafloor hemmed and hawed and
hemmed some more and the judge added: How can you cultivate
and not possess?

Then Chris argued that perhaps the Crown didn't appeal the
Sheppard cultivation ruling because that cultivation charge
was pursuant to the older Narcotics Control Act, not
the newer Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) against
which Parker had no exemption to cultivate. Judge Clements
asked why they used two acts when there were no substantial
differences same. He had no answer but could only surmise
that there had been no appeal against the cultivation
exemption to the Narcotics Control Act because they could
not charge him with cultivation under the CDSA.

Then the judge pointed out how the Parker Court of Appeal
had said they would have struck it down had the Crown
appealed anyway. It's logical that if he's exempt from
cultivation in the NCA, he's exempt in the CDSA too.

Chris then repeated the canard that Parker had chosen not to
apply because his doctor wouldn't sign. He pointed out how
we held it was up to government to get his doctor to comply,
not up to him to doctor-shop until he finds one. The judge
noted the "Catch-22" in trying to find a doctor when the
Ontario Medical Association is warning them against signing.
Chris could only counter that "many have." It's "some have."
A thousand to qualify out of a couple of million who need it
for medicine is not "many."

Judge Clements asked if the Regulations satisfied the
Rosenberg requirements! Not on time, they didn't. Chris
could only say that the court were "unhappy with the MMAR"
and fixed the deficiencies to make the prohibition valid
again.

The judge pointed out it was anticipated that the government
would fix it in time! It didn't work. Chris could only
respond that even if it didn't work, it was enacted on time!
Har har har har. He had to admit the law had been
invalidated but couldn't use the word so he called it
"imperfect."

The judge pointed out that the issuance of the MMAR on the
last day left no time to get an exemption. He ascertained
that Parker was left unprotected from Aug. 1 2001 to Sep 15
2001 when he finally got some protection.

Finally, when he took a look at the Court of Appeal decision
on the appeal of Chapnik setting aside Pitt, he asked "what
am I to make of the statement that her decision was
"interlocutory." Hem-haw time.

Then he pointed out that the only reason used for Pitt being
set aside was that it was "improper service, not that the
remedy was inappropriate, just improper service." And I'd
pointed out that there was nothing wrong with the service at
all. All Chris could do was note the Court of Appeal agreed
with civil court setting aside a criminal court ruling.

When Leafloor was explaining the Parker, Turmel-Paquette,
and Hitzig applications all being consolidated, he kept
saying it was a challenge to the MMAR. We've made the
argument that we were challenging the CDSA, not the MMAR,
umpteen times but Chris kept lawying that we were all
challenging the MMAR and made no mention of the CDSA.

Best of all, the judge asked him about Krieger that followed
the Ontario Court of Appeal in Parker. "If Parker's being
grandfathered for cultivation, how not for possession?"!!!

Finally, Chris made his last lame attempt by pointing out
that Judge Sheppard's decision didn't specifically exempt
Terry but exempted all persons with medical need, a much
broader ambit that was being claimed.

Of course, if it applies to everyone, it applies to Parker
but that let me point out that it seems to apply to
Francisco who got all charges dropped and his pot back even
though he only had the "medical need" card to play at the
time of his arrest. He only got the "Health Canada
Exemption" card later. But the reasoning was used in Krieger
and was used in Francisco.

The judge asked for material on the Francisco case and all I
had was the Section 24 Order of Justice Rhys-Morgan
returning the controlled substance to Francisco.

At this point, the judge said that the record was
incomplete, what with only Pitt being claimed in the notice
and reliance on more new grounds. So I said I'd refile an
amended Notice detailing the new grounds and a factum if
wanted. Yes, mine by Feb 5 and the Crown's by Mar 5 and a
Reply by Mar 12. Terry's returning on Friday to get a date
for continuation of the hearing.

The hearing lasted 3 hours and the judge even agreed to
order the Francisco transcript for our information. Derek
informed the court that it was all done in chambers but
we'll try to see if they have anything.

I publish now, Terry's report and a few comments by Marc
Paquette leading up to it:

>MedPotMarc
>Re: Terry Parker in court Jan 2nd 2007
>Date: Tue Jan 02 2007

Hi Rev. Dri Yes indeed - good luck Terry!
Even better than getting back his constitutional exemption
and get back his ounce of cannabis that was seized by Canada
Post - the declaration that the government didn't comply to
the "1" year time limit in the Parker ruling, and that the
prohibition of marijuana within the CDSA is now unknown to
law for sick and healthy Canadians as well!
I fought many times in different courts with Terry in trying
to have this declaration pronounced, but we had too many
interference from the misleading Crown and some unsupportive
and disruptive so-called "marijuana activists"!
John C. Turmel was accepted as a "friend of the court" to
represent Terry's defense.
There will be ALOT of sparks in court today! LOL Marc
---

>MedPotMarc
>Re: Terry Parker in court Jan 2nd 2007
>Date: Tue Jan 02 2007

This time, it's the Crown being charged!
Exactly my Friends - Terry is going against our government!
Someone sent Terry an ounce of cannabis by mail in August
2006 and Canada Post opened the package, seized it and
reported it to authorities.
Terry wasn't charged, but the government and "Hellth" Canada
refused to give Terry his cannabis medicine back!
They say that because Terry doesn't have anymore
constitutional exemption or a "Hellth" Canada exemption,
that he's not allowed to the medicine he won under our
constitutional rights.
When Justice Romain Pitt, a criminal court judge of Ontario
re-instated Terry's constitutional exemption because our
federal government didn't comply in the Parker ruling, a
civil court judge in Ontario by the name of Justice Chapnik
overuled the decision of Justice Pitt and cancelled his
decision - leaving Terry without his constitutional
protection.
This was an error in law, as civil court judges cannot
overule the decision of a criminal court judge! This will
also be argued today.
But the main objective here is really this declaration that
we have been waiting for so long!

JCT: How right

Again, good luck Terry and coach! Marc
---

>gir
>Re: Terry Parker in court Jan 2nd 2007 [Re: MedPotMarc]
>Date: Tue Jan 02 2007

Wow this should be interesting case law. As marijuana
remains a criminal offense can a civil court reverse a
decision of a criminal court in a criminal matter? Lets just
say I would not want to that judge if it is ruled he made a
mistake in the application of the law. I am really suprised
it was not refered back to the criminal courts instead of
being ruled on in a civil court room. Go Terry

JCT: The Court of Appeal said it could. Har har har har.
---

>MedPotMarc
>Re: Terry Parker in court Jan 2nd 2007 [Re: gir]
>Date: Tue Jan 02 2007

Terry was issued his first medical marijuana constitutional
exemption in 1997 by the decision of a Criminal Court judge,
and it was also a Criminal Court judge who gave "1" year to
the federal government to comply with his ruling, or the
prohibition of marijuana within the CDSA would be unknown to
law for sick and healthy Canadians as well.
It was just logic for Terry to return to a Criminal Court to
get the declaration that the government didn't comply with
the "1" year time limit in the Parker ruling, but Justice
Romain Pitt decided to reinstate his constitutional
exemption instead.
Crown Lara Speirs appealed the decision of Justice Pitt and
introduced Professor Alan Young twice in a Civil Court with
Justice Chapnik to go against the decision of Justice Pitt -
and they won!
But it's a fact that in any provincial court in Canada, a
civil court judge cannot overule the decision of a criminal
court judge. Marc
---

>MedPotMarc
>Date: Terry Parker in court Jan 2nd 2007 [Re: MedPotMarc]
>Date: Tue Jan 02 2007

gir and Friends; I just want to make clear that I'm not
speaking against Professor Young, but facts are facts, and
it's written in history for ever! Marc
---

>Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 23:36:55 -0500
>From: terryparkerjr@... ("Terry Parker Jr.")
>Subject: Re: Today's "TOP" Cannabis News on MedPot.net
>To: MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com

Dear Gang,
In Brampton Court with John Turmel, Chris LeaFloor, and
Justice Clements. John gave run down of court proceedings
with Pitt, Chapnik, Feldman, Hitzig, OCA, SCC,

Crown LeaFloor is argueing that I have not gone doctor
shopping to have MMAR forms filled out. Justice Clements
raised a point of myself in a catch 22, when the OMA has
ordered doctors not to sign MMAR. John also pointed out that
I was protected by Sheppard, with the issue of cultivation,
since that was not appealed, and further supported by
Krieger.

Fransico case was also brought up, when his pot was returned
without having a exemption, and only demonstrating medical
necessity. Justice Clements stated we could not throw cases
at the court, which have not allowed the crown to study or
prepare for. Clements would apprecaite a factum of our
cases, response, and rebuttle. We agreed, that in or around
a month, to submit material, respond, and rebuttle.
I go back this Friday, Jan. 5th to set date, and then in a
month to submit factum.

I just wish somehow, the court can realize that I have been
severely traumatized by our medical profession, and despite
my attempts to comply by the law, I am prone to further
unauthorized manchurian candidate developmental research.
Such unauthorized research which is not condusive for
convulsive disorder. Fuck man, having my skull ripped open
under a local, is serious motherfucking torture. I fail to
comprehend, on how concealing this hidden crime will benefit
our application for return.

LeaFloor has this notion, that because of this assault, is
why I will not see other doctors. Bullshit. I have seen
many many doctors over the past 30 years, only to be told,
we do not recognize marijuana, and would prefer a further
left temporal lobectomy, and prefrontal lobotomy.

The government has already sanctioned criminal assault upon
my person, with the CIA MK-ULTRA "psychosurgical' and "brain
implant" research upon "unwitting subjects" being myself,
and other children at the Toronto Hospital for Sick
Children.

The court must recognize, as a result of medical / legal
conflict with the issue of liberalization of marijuana, my
right to life is being threatened by propaganda research,
and a medical / legal conspiresy to hinder any access to
marijuana.

Leafloor should be ashamed, for neglecting my effforts in
1979, when I spent 63 fucking days with electodes stuck in
my scalp, daily blood tests, ect. Only to discover
afterwards, that ONLY THC was administered, not marijuana.

I've got a cure for epilepsy, yet this cure is being
surpressed by a medical legal profession, hell bent on
profiting off marijuana prohibtion.
Yours, Terry

JCT: Over all, it was a good day for us. The judge was
bright and considering hadn't even seen the material until
the last minute, stuck it to the Crown over and over.
Whether that translates into the nerve to ignore the Ontario
Court of Appeal's resurrection of the law and a general
declaration of continued invalidity or into the easy out by
accepting the Sheppard protection as still valid, I can't
tell. But it looks good for some justice for Terry even if
it doesn't yet launch the tidal wave of legalisation and
conviction-expunging that will be on the way.

I'm sure there's lots more from a 3-hour hearing. But we'll
have to wait for the whole transcript to be published at a
later time. This is what I remember upon first recall.


--
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