JCT: On Feb 23 2007 will be heard my appeals related to the
Parliament Hill House of Commons bust: 1) MacLeod J.'s
refusal for prohibition of charges; 2) MacLeod J.'s refusal
for certiorari to offer me an election as to judge and jury
or judge alone that being busted with more than 3Kg of
marijuana allows; 3) Belanger J.'s conviction and skipping
of constitutional challenge.

Factums for the Prohibition and Certiorari appeals have
already been filed, served and published online. This is the
last Factum for conviction:

File No. C45295
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
- and -
JOHN C. TURMEL
Appellant
(Applicant)

APPELLANT'S FACTUM FOR QUASH AND AGAINST CONVICTION

OVERVIEW
0. On May 14 2003, after the prohibition on possession of
marijuana in S.4 of the CDSA had been invalidated by the
Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Parker had taken effect
after July 31 2001 and before revalidation of the possession
prohibition by the Hitzig Court of Appeal had taken effect
some time after 10am on Oct 7 2003, Appellant was arrested
with "more than 3 kilograms of marijuana" (3.277Kg) and
convicted of possession of "less than 3Kg of marijuana for
the purpose of trafficking" to the Prime Minister, Justice
Minister, Supreme Court of Canada, Superior Court of
Ontario, R.C.M.P. and O.P.P. This is an appeal of that
conviction, an appeal for a declaration that my S.7 right to
life is infringed by denial of this effective non-toxic herb
for preventative purposes, and an appeal for a declaration
that the charges should be quashed as "unknown to law."


PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Appellant adopts the facts and arguments as laid out in
the Consolidated Factum in the Turmel-Drouin-Martin
consolidated appeals C44587, C44683, C44684 with respect to
the prohibition on possession in S.4 and on the S.7
prohibition on cultivation in S.7 CDSA remaining of no force
and effect since their repeals.

2. An Application for Prohibition of the charges was sought
on the grounds the Section 4 possession and Section 7
cultivation offences in the "Controlled Drugs and Substances
Act" ("CDSA") were never re-enacted after their respective
repeals by the Parker Court of Appeal of Ontario on Aug. 1
2001 and by the Krieger Court of Appeal of Alberta on Dec 4
2002. Dismissed by MacLeod J. and appealed as C44587.

3. An Application for Certiorari was sought on the grounds
accused was denied an election to be tried by judge and jury
or judge alone where the substance of the matter exceeded
3Kg of marijuana that demands an election. Dismissed by
MacLeod J. and appealed as C44588.

4. When the trial proceeded without awaiting the results of
those two appeals, Appellant filed a S.601 "pre-plea" motion
to quash charges based on the invalidation of the
cultivation and possession sections by the Alberta Court of
Appeal in Krieger. It contained the same arguments as in the
application for prohibition appealed as C44587 with new
evidence from the Crown's Memorandum and Affidavits from R.
v. Cornelssen [2005] in Alberta. (App.17 of the Quash Record
not in Appeal Book and appended hereto.)

5. Judge Belanger reserved decision on the pre-plea
application to quash charges but insisted on proceeding with
the trial before determining whether the charges were to be
quashed. When asked to plead, Appellant refused, standing
mute pursuant to S.606, until the pre-plea motion to quash
had been dealt with. The judge ordered that a "not guilty"
plea be entered, the Crown's evidence was heard and the
proceedings were adjourned to March 10 2006.

6. On March 10 2006, Judge Belanger dismissed the pre-plea
application to quash, and handed down a conviction. This did
not allow for a "pre-trial" constitutional challenge on the
grounds appellant's right to life is infringed by denial of
this miraculous herb for preventative purposes, nor for any
defence to be presented or summations heard. Sentencing was
adjourned to March 29 2006. Appealed herein as C45295.

PART II - QUESTIONS IN ISSUE
7. The learned judge erred in ruling that the prohibitions
were no longer unknown to law.

8. The learned judge erred in failing to declare that the
prohibition was an infringement of Appellant's right to life
pursuant to S.7 of the Charter of Rights.

PART III - STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT
8. The Hitzig Court of Appeal cannot resurrect, revalidate,
bring penal laws back to life and the charge should have
been quashed as unknown to law.

9. Prohibition of cannabis medication used for prevention of
disease is just as much a violation of the right to health
as for alleviation or cure of actual disease.

PART IV - ORDER SOUGHT
10. Appellant seeks an Order declaring S.7, S.4 and all
other sections of the CDSA dealing with cannabis marijuana
to be declared
a) still invalid since their repeals;
b) unconstitutionally invalid for infringing the right to
prevention of disease

Dated at Brantford on Jan 29 2007.
The Appellant:
John C. Turmel, B. Eng.,
8-37 Colborne St. E., Brantford ON N3T 2G3,
Tel/fax: 519-753-0645 Email: turmel@...

For the Respondent:
Morris Pistyner
Director, Federal Prosecution Service
Department of Justice,
Suite 3400 - 130 King St. W. Box 36
Toronto Ontario M5X 1K6
Tel: 416-973-3219 Fax: 952-2114
Email: Morris.Pistyner@...


--
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