JCT: A couple of years after the Parker case had invalidated
the prohibition on marijuana in 2001, you'll remember that on
May 14, 2003, the day before the Minister of Justice was
going to introduce a new valid prohibition against
marijuana, I went on Parliament Hill to the House of Commons
with a life-sentence supply (7 Lbs = 3.3 Kg) of marijuana to
hand out the Prime Minister, Justice Minister, et al, to
demonstrate that I knew the prohibition had died on Terry
Parker Day in 2001 even if the government wouldn't admit it
and stop busting people.

Two days later, Ontario Superior Court Justice Rogin also
ruled the possession prohibition had been repealed on Terry
Parker Day.

And then I was proven right when the Ontario Court of Appeal
ruled that the Parker case had invalidated the offence of
possession on Terry Parker Day 2001.

But had not invalidated the offence of possession for the
purpose of trafficking to the Prime Minister, Justice
Minister, Supreme Court, Ontario Superior Court, Royal
Canadian Mounted Police and Ontario Provincial Police
because I had so much of the controlled substance which they
admit didn't happen to be controlled at the time of the
offence.

Via the charge, on Nov 2005, I sought the prerogative relief
of Prohibition on charges pursuant to
penal sanctions that are deemed to be repealed pursuant to
the Interpretation Act before Justice MacLeod. It was
perfunctorily dismissed upon 30 minutes of argument and
little judicial attention. I appealed which, in the old
days, automatically stayed the lower court process.

With over 3Kg of marijuana, I had an election as to trial by
judge and jury in Superior Court or by Provincial Court
judge alone. To prevent me from having a jury trial in
Superior Court, the Crown changed the facts and charged me
with possession of under 3Kg before a Provincial Court judge
alone. I also sought the prerogative remedy of Certiorari to
remove my case from the wrong lower jurisdiction to the
right superior one before Justice MacLeod. After a similarly
perfunctory consideration, it was dismissed too. I appealed
which, in the old days, automatically stayed the lower court
process.

But Provincial Court Judge Belanger didn't want to wait for
the Court of Appeal's rulings on whether the process before
him should be prohibited or removed and insisted on starting
the process rolling.

If the higher court had dismissed the Prohibition and
Certiorari appeals and I had to go to trial, I would first
start with a S.601 application pre-plea motion to quash the
charges on the basis that the Parliament never re-enacted
the prohibitions since they S.4 possession and S.7
cultivation were repealed in R. v. Parker in 2001 and R. v.
Krieger in 2002.

Then if the pre-plea S.601 application is dismissed, I then
enter my plea by standing mute until the judge enters not
guilty for me.

Then comes a constitutional objection that the law is bad,
not dead. Remember, Parker and Krieger already won that the
law is constitutionally bad which is why our Prohibition
motions argue the law is now legislatively dead, not
constitutionally bad.

In this part, I would be arguing the right of a healthy
individual to use marijuana to prevent epilepsy, glaucoma,
MS, dystonia, cancer, depression, etc. is violated by
prohibition of its preventative herb. As an engineer, I see
the mathematical value of reducing my chances of dying by
this using it even if math-rejects like lawyer-judges
cannot. Though they sit in judgment of insurance cases where
such understanding is presumed!

Then if the judge dismissed my constitutional motion, on to
the trial where the Crown presents its case, I present my
defence, Crown sums up its case. Judge decides.

So I filed my pre-plea motion to quash the charges heard
before Judge Belanger. Then, before handing down his
decision on the pre-plea motion to quash the charges, he
forced me to enter a plea and heard the Crown's case.

On the date Judge Belanger handed down his decision on the
"pre-plea" motion to quash the charges, he also ruled I was
guilty skipping the constitutional question as well as the
defence and argument portions of the trial. I was sentenced
to $1000 fine, 100 hours of community service and 3 years
probation, the max, making it 5 years under government
control for my righteous stunt to prove the law was dead and
scare the government out of introducing the new legislation.

By the way, they announced they were withdrawing the new
legislation in the same article as my bust which was picked
up in the National media and all around the world but not in
my home-town's Ottawa Citizen, Sun or Le Droit where the
story of political gadfly mayoral, provincial, federal
candidate facing life in prison was squelched! And then
Parliament was prorogued and the new prohibition legislation
has never been re-enacted. The Crown's only basis for
continued busting is their argument that the courts have
unrepealed the prohibition in Alan Young's Hitzig case. Of
course, they've all, just like Orwell's 1984 predicted,
conveniently forgotten how old books say that only
Parliament Only Legislates, Courts Only Abrogate. I'll
remind them and post their decisions.

So I appealed my case being rail-roaded through the lower
court before the validity of the venue or the validity of
the charges have been determined. But I didn't want to have
to prepare my whole constitutional case on the conviction to
present it before the Court of Appeal before I knew what
they were going to say on the two motions that short-circuit
the current lower court prosecution.

But the Crown wanted to have all three appeals heard
together, MacLeod's Prohibition and Certiorari and
Belanger's Conviction. This would mean more short-notice
work for me so I said I wanted to wait. But the Crown made a
a motion for Friday Jan 12 2007 asking the Court of Appeal
to slate all appeals together and for me to hand in my
Factum on time.

Then it dawned on me that in our Big Five appeals with
Hitzig and J.P. making it seven, I and Terry had triple
appeals, Marc Paquette had a double. Three appeals must be a
pretty rare occurrence and here was my chance to have
another triple. And take a triple to the Supreme Court of
Canada, something I've never before done.

So I sent this letter to the Crown.

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

Nov 19 2004

Mr. Corosa
C/O Kelly Low
Exchange Tower, 130 King St. W. #3400
Toronto M5X 1K6
Tel: 416-973-3219 Fax: 416-952-2116
BY FAX

Re: Appeal C45295, C44587, C44588, C44683, C44684

I hereby consent for Appeal C45295 regarding conviction to
be heard on Feb 23 2007 with my Appeals C44584 regarding
Prohibition and and C44588 regarding Certiorari.

I consent to filing my factum for Appeal C45295 by Jan 29
2007.

I consent to the Crown filing a consolidated factum for all
appeals and the Crown's motion to quash.

I have spoken to Mr. Drouin who says he and Mr. Martin also
consent to the motion.

Dated at Brantford on Thursday Jan 11 2007

JCT: Of course, this is now a second Big Five appeals since
the Prohibition appeals of Pierre Drouin and Real Martin are
also consolidated with mine!

Feb 23 is going to be another one for the books. And, since
they let me tape, available for posting almost as soon as
it's transcribed.

For anyone wanting background on the House of Commons
Parliament Hill Bust, see
http://yahoogroups.com/group/MedPot/messages/780

780 I dare gamble life-imprisonment 5/14
781 Out of jail on own recognizance 5/15
782 In the belly of the beast 5/15
788 canada.com Story 5/17
789 An article from globeandmail.com John The Engineer johnturmel 5/17
791 Justice Rogin rules law died on Terry Parker Day!!!!
796 Rogin decision declaring law's funeral over 5/19

Continued in list of topics.
http://yahoogroups.com/group/MedPot/files/mptopics.txt


--
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