Court File No.
M33601, C44684,
C44683, C44587,
C44588, C45295

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Applicant on Motion to Quash
(Respondent on Appeal)
and
PIERRE DROUIN and
REAL MARTIN and
JOHN C. TURMEL
Respondents on Motion To Quash
(Appellants on Appeal)

FEB 23 2007 TRANSCRIPT COURT OF APPEAL

Justices Labrosse, Sharpe, Blair

Part B:

TURMEL: Okay. So then I wrote to the Crown Attorney and I
said: hey, 100,000 people were illegally convicted while the
law was invalid, the Court of Appeal says the period of
invalidation was over 26 months. Why didn't you erase those
convictions? No answers. You have the power to Order them
to fix that. I'm asking.

So finally, the Supreme Court of Canada dismisses Krieger.
So here's Pierre and Real, both medical users, Pierre now
has a medical exemption, no better way to prove you're sick
than getting an exemption after you've been busted. And
other cases recently where people who were sick and got
busted got exemptions and were let off the hook. Like the
Court in Hitzig said, just prove to the judges you're sick
and we'll let you go. Which is what they've been doing.

Well, in Pierre's case, he wouldn't have been busted if the
Crown Attorney hadn't said that Section 7 remains alive
because of this lousy stay. So he is a victim of the Krieger
scandal by Crown Attorney who did not reflect the Krieger
decision in the new Criminal Code. Now when judges strike
down a law, which you have the power to do, a bad law, and
the government doesn't change the law in the Criminal Code,
I complained. I said: hey, we're supposed to have a struck
interpretation of criminal statutes, which means you have to
write it down right, and when I appealed because they didn't
do something right, the court tells me: no need to change
the written law, we'll remember which laws are no longer
valid. That was the gist of my decision in Turmel. I said:
Look, you should have changed Section 4 to exempt marijuana
but you didn't. So how do you make Section 4 ineffective if
marijuana is still on a list of banned substances if you
don't exempt it over here? It has to be negated over there.
And that was the argument, saying that because they failed
to reflect a change in the Criminal Code, that meant it had
to have happened somewhere, because it's wrong for the
courts to say: we'll remember which written laws don't
count. Which is what my case at the Ontario Court of Appeal
told me. And I never got the chance to appeal that. Maybe
again. So, that was the Turmel case they rejected me. I say
you've got to reprint the new laws when courts strike down
bad ones, and they don't, and they keep enforcing it. So, to
say the courts will remember which laws aren't there
anymore, that's really bad and can't be right.

Finally, when I asked if the Court would please write down
on the Order that the law has been resurrected, it's no
longer in violation of the constitution and the prohibition
is in full force again, Justice Doherty wouldn't put it on
his Order. We don't even have an Order saying that the law
is valid again. We've got to go to a decision with reasons.
And we asked for the Order. You Court want to say that
you're bringing the law back to life, doing Parliament's
job, write it down. And he wouldn't.

Finally, the Hitzig Application for Leave to the Supreme
Court of Canada, they wanted supervision of Health Canada
and got thrown out. And finally, Supreme Court of Canada
ends Krieger, so it's over now.

And the only excuse the Crown has to continue busting is the
fact that the stay from the functus officio Court of Appeal
is still alive. And that's the only excuse they've got for
putting him through this, and every other sick person out
there.

So, June 9 charges withdrawn in Toronto for 3 people who
argued the Krieger exemption. June 15 Ed Martin's possession
charge withdrawn. June 17 Sandra Kramer's possession charge
is withdrawn.

Oct 7, the Supreme Court of Canada applications. I did my
appeals to the Supreme Court which were thrown out by
Justice Binnie as abandoned for lack of paperwork. And then
finally, Oct 28, Mr. Drouin made an application to quash his
charges on the basis of Krieger and rejected by Judge
Nadeau. Because you can only appeal the Quash at the end of
trial, he went with his Prohibition. Then, for Mr. Martin as
well. Finally, they lost their Quash, but one interesting
aspect: Out in Alberta where there was another cultivation
prosecution going on, Cornelssen, the Crown Attorney from
the Krieger case admitted that he didn't ask for a Section
65 stay because the defence attorney jumped up to make a
motion to lift the stay.

And he admitted that the judges refused to entertain any
other motions under the Alberta Court Act. And he was asked
why he didn't apply for a Supreme Court of Canada stay. He
said: Because the defence jumped up and did not get their
stay lifted. So, the imaginary stay is still there, because
of the Crown mistake? Whatever. The stay died and the Acton
decision took effect when the Alberta Court of Appeal became
functus officio and shut down their doors and that's when
Section 7 and Section 4 prohibitions died for everybody in
Canada.

Then, after they had lost their Quashes and couldn't do
anything about that yet, they filed Prohibitions, Mr. Drouin
and Mr. Martin to prohibit on the grounds of the Krieger.
And then finally, I was brought to court. I had done my
Prohibition earlier, and with the Certiorari because I was in
the wrong court, on November 28 of 2005 that Justice MacLeod
dismissed them and we are now here on those two, and Justice
Belanger then handed down his decision on the pre-plea
motion to Quash, then concluded the trial and found me
guilty. No constitutional motion, no defence put in.

So I'm here on the grounds I should be able to argue a
constitutional issue that health, prevention, it's a valid
right. And that's basically it.

Section 7 has basically died for these fellows. They
have valid medical reasons but were put through the wringer
while Section 7 was invalid since 2002. And we want a
Krieger Day Declaration. Like the Court in Hitzig said:
Yeah, we agree that the prohibition became invalid in 2001.
We need you to say: Yeah, we agree that the Section 7 became
invalid in Alberta in 2002 which is persuasive on all of us
everywhere too. Just like your Hitzig and Parker decisions
were persuasive all over the country as well.

Fine, so that's it for the Prohibition. That is the
arguments for the death and the fact that the Parliament
never brought the statutes, and re-enacted new statutes,
after they were deemed repealed pursuant to the
Interpretation Act. So, that basically is the argument for
Prohibition, in the Drouin-Martin-Turmel appeal.

LABROSSE J.A. You're all finished?

TURMEL: Well, for this appeal. There's two more appeals that
are short.

LABROSSE J.A.: You're not arguing for Mr. Drouin and Martin.

TURMEL: No. I'm making the same argument. I'm with them.

LABROSSE J.A.: We asked you to deal with your appeal.

TURMEL: I've got three of them. I gave you the argument in
my first appeal.

LABROSSE J.A.: You have one appeal.

TURMEL: No. I have three of them. I have three different
judges. That's the point. The Crown got the right to
consolidate their factum, mix all three of my appeals
together including theirs.

LABROSSE J.A.: That's right.

TURMEL: But if you look at

LABROSSE J.A.: You have one appeal before us and it's the
appeal from the conviction.

JCT: The third conviction appeal was assigned 0 minutes for
argument!!! I have to vent a little resentment here. The
last time I had a Big Five at the Court of Appeal in 2003
with the Hitzig crew, the court took 3 full days and none of
those appeals involved penal sanctions. Now, we're being
allowed only minutes. So lawland Ontario gives lawyers more
time than self-defenders. Pay for a lawyer and the court
gives you more time!

TURMEL: Their appeal...

LABROSSE J.A.: No no. Your appeal is on your own...

TURMEL: But I've got exactly the same Prohibition as them...

LABROSSE J.A.: You've spent 40 minutes to argue your appeal.

TURMEL: I've got three.

LABROSSE J.A.: You've only got one.

TURMEL: I've got one with them and I've got two alone. I've
got two appeals alone. Certiorari's got nothing to do with
them. My conviction's got nothing to do with them.

LABROSSE J.A.: But you've been convicted...

TURMEL: I know but that's a different appeal. They're not
convicted. They're Prohibitions.

LABROSSE J.A.: That's why....

TURMEL: We, we just, we're finishing the Prohibition appeal.

LABROSSE J.A.: You were given 40 minutes for your appeal.
You're not acting for Mr. Drouin or Mr. Martin and you were
given 40 minutes for your appeal from your conviction by
Justice Belanger.

TURMEL: I argued the appeal from the decision refusing
Prohibition and because they're with me, it's the big one.

JCT: And also, it's the same amount of time we were given
before the addition of the conviction appeal. No wonder they
put 0 minutes on the letter for the conviction appeal. They
meant it. "Let's consolidate in the last appeal and give
no more time." If I wanted to argue against my conviction, I
was going to have to give up some time out of our
Prohibition appeal! Lucky for the Crown that consolidating
another case got me no extra time to argue it.

LABROSSE J.A.: Yes, you can argue as you wish, we're not
going to tell you what to argue.

TURMEL: My conviction appeal is not long. And my certiorari
appeal is not long. But the Prohibition appeal with these
two is long.

LABROSSE J.A.: Now you're at the end of your 40 minutes.

TURMEL: Of the first appeal.

LABROSSE J.A.: I'm asking you to conclude your argument.

TURMEL: Well I still have two more appeals, short ones, to
deal with.

LABROSSE J.A.: No you don't.

TURMEL: I have MacLeod and Belanger to go.

LABROSSE J.A.: No, it's only Belanger you're appealing from.

TURMEL: No, I'm appealing from MacLeod.

LABROSSE J.A.: Crown.

COROZA: He has three appeals in the court.

LABROSSE J.A.: But they were consolidated.

COROZA: They were consolidated. And there's a motion to
quash two of those appeals.

JCT: So there must be more there must be more than one
appeal if the Crown has a motion to quash two of three. Har
har har har.

LABROSSE J.A.: The appeals from Prohibition and Certiorari.

COROZA: The appeals from Prohibition and Certiorari, that's
our motion to quash.

LABROSSE J.A.: Which are now moot because he was convicted.

JCT: Bingo. So if a judge ignores challenges to his
jurisdiction and just goes ahead despite appeals for
those challenges and does it, it mootens, nullifies (short
circuits) the challenges to jurisdiction! Wow. A judge
wouldn't have done it if he didn't have the jurisdiction to
do it so he has jurisdiction to do it. Where have we heard
that rationale before?

Notice Pierre and Real's Judge Nadeau is awaiting the ruling
on the challenges to his jurisdiction before proceeding. All
he has to do is, like Belanger, proceed despite the
challenge to his jurisdiction and kill the challenge. His
jurisdiction is established just by going ahead and doing
it. Great legal precedent.

It's like using the meaning of "moot" backwards. If the
Court of Appeal granted the Certiorari or Prohibition, it
would make Belanger's decision on conviction moot. But it's
hard to see how the lower court decision can make the higher
court decision moot. Justice in Blunderland.

COROZA: That's our position. So in essence, our position is
that the only appeal that should be litigated is C45295
which is the conviction appeal.

Clerk: Order....
Clerk: Court now resumes.

LABROSSE J.A.: Due to the misunderstanding due to the
number of appeals going on,

JCT: The court was wrong about it being one appeal, I was
right about it being three.

LABROSSE J.A.: you only have one solitary appeal but we'll
give you another 10 minutes to argue anything with respect
to any subject you want for that appeal. You understand me?

TURMEL: Yes.

JCT: Five minutes for my certiorari appeal against MacLeod
and five minutes for my appeal against conviction. What was
the rush? A good lunch special? Talk about not wanting to
give me a just hearing.

TURMEL: Well, as for conviction, I'll deal with the
application for certiorari first.

JCT: Keep in mind, this is the Ontario's highest court
deigning to spend 5 minutes on this appeal. I'll have to
keep it down to a sound bite they might be able to follow
since they don't seem to want much of the facts.

TURMEL: This is from the Factum in the application to the
Superior Court and it is in the appeal book for Certiorari
right now on page 55 and it points out a decision of the
Saskatchewan Court of Appeal which points out that the judge
has absolute jurisdiction when there is under 3 kilograms of
marijuana. If the subject matter is in an amount greater
than 3 kilograms of marijuana, there is no choice for the
Crown, he has to give an election to the person to see
whether they want to cede jurisdiction to the lower court or
not and have a jury trial.

LABROSSE J.A.: You made that argument before Judge Belanger?

TURMEL: No, I made that argument originally, first of all, I
made an application for particulars. I wanted them to change
the indictment from saying "charged with not more than 3
kilograms," to drop the not. Because I had more. I didn't
want a lie on the face of the indictment.

The Crown argued that like when they can apply different
charges to the same set of facts, there's a body, it can be
"Murder One," "Murder Two," "Manslaughter,"

LABROSSE J.A.: I asked you if you argued it before Justice
Belanger?

TURMEL: No, I argued it before Justice Wright before trial
in a pre-plea motion for particulars to change, amend the
indictment, to drop the word "not." And that was refused.
When Justice Wright would amend it, I went to the Superior
Court for an Order of Certiorari saying I shouldn't be in
the lower court that doesn't have jurisdiction over "Plus 3
Key" me. I want out. And Justice MacLeod said no after a 20
minute hearing. And that's what this second appeal is about.
I had the right to an election, I was denied the election on
the grounds that the Crown has discretion, just like when
there's a corpse, to choose "Murder One," "Murder Two,"
"Manslaughter." And just like when there's "More than 3
Keys" and "Less than 3 Keys." Well, that's different. Now,
they don't have discretion as to the facts, they have
discretion as to charges with respect to facts. But they
can't change the facts. And the facts are there were more
than 3 kilograms and on the face of the indictment is a lie.

Now, the defence I never got to offer, because after my pre-
plea motion to Quash on the grounds of Krieger was
dismissed, the conviction was handed down right then. I
would have argued I have more if you say I was charged with
less and I never got a chance to argue that.

So the Crown does not have the discretion to change the
facts of the crime which they've done here. They may do it
for others who don't complain, I did. I tried to fix it.
They didn't let me, they should have. I had more, I should
have had the opportunity for a jury trial. And that's what
that Certiorari is about.

Finally, for the conviction. Marijuana's been known as
helpful for all sorts of things.

JCT: For a life sentence offence, the Court deigns to spend
another 5 minutes. Talk about digging deep seeking Justice.

TURMEL: Glaucoma, epilepsy, M.S., health with cancer, cure
cancer!! It regrows brain cells. We didn't know that until
the University of Saskatchewan announced that last year. It
doesn't kill brain cells, like alcohol, with hangovers, it
makes you grown brain cells which is why you feel good.

So, all these lies about it have never been proven, and we
have an absolutely non-toxic medicinal herb that is no
threat to me or anyone else, and on the grounds that
prevention of this kind of disease is also valuable because
it adds to my chance of surviving, that means that I too
have my right to life threatened by this prohibition of a a
healthy herb that could help me prevent all these well-known
diseases it's good for.

And finally, the last defence I was going to present to the
charge of possession with intent to traffic was that the
evidence shows that that I announced I was bringing a pound
of marijuana to the House of Commons for the Prime
Minister's inspection. That I was going to bring a pound to
the Supreme Court for the judges' inspection. Then a pound
across the street to the Minister of Justice for his
inspection. And over to the Superior Court, the R.C.M.P.,
the Ottawa Police for their inspection.

So the evidence did show that I didn't bring it for the
purpose of trafficking, that I brought it for the purpose of
inspection, and I did possess over three keys but I don't
believe the presumption is valid that I was there to
traffic when I was simply there to allow them to inspect it
and luckily, that was reported in evidence.

So, on the grounds to the charge that I had less than 3
kilograms of marijuana, I plead I had more.

And to the charge that I had intent to traffic, I had intent
to let them inspect.

And that the argument I would have made before conviction
and it's not satisfying like having the law declared invalid
on Krieger Day December 4 2002, which is the ultimate
decision being used by the two sick, legitimately ailing
appellants behind me.

So I have these arguments to mitigate my conviction and at
the same time, I also filed an application for prohibition,
the arguments of which I've made which represent the
injustice that these ill people behind me were forced to
suffer because the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Hitzig
said they were going to do what Parliament didn't do. Bring
back a law to life. And they told judges around the country
to ignore the Interpretation Act and just pretend it was
absent until they brought it back to life.

And I am only worried that they're not going to say that the
capital punishment is only absent and they're about to bring
it back to life. I always hope it would only be Parliament.
Thank you.

Clerk: The court is recessed.

JCT: Pierre pointed out that my 45-minute tape still had
plenty to go when the pointed out the 30-minute point. Maybe
the judge was counting in the time used before I got to
start my presentation.

[continued...


--
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