Part C: Turmel, Drouin, Martin medpot appeals

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

JCT: When they came back, Justice Blair asked Crown Steve
Coroza about my being deprived of the chance to present a
defence at my trial or make a constitutional motion. He said
I had not given sufficient notice of my constitutional
motion and that's why Judge Belanger skipped that part of my
pre-trial challenge and went straight to post-trial
sentencing!
Remember, it's supposed to go:
Step 1: Pre-plea Quash motion: usually reserved. Dismissed.
Step 2: Mute Plea of Not Guilty to set trial date.
Step 3: Pre-trial constitutional motion. Dismissed.
Step 4: Trial prosecution.
Step 5: Trial defence,
Step 6: Closing arguments.
Step 7: Conviction: set sentencing hearing date.
Step 8: Sentencing.

In this case, Judge Belanger refused to rule on the motion
to quash the charge as unknown to law, went on with Step 2
and ordered me to plead, before he handed down his ruling on
Step 1. I stood mute refusing to plead to a possible nullity
so he entered "not guilty" to the possible nullity in my
name. The guy won't hand down his ruling on whether it's a
nullity if starting the trial before telling me his
decision. When he finally did handed down his decision on
Step 1, with it came his decision on Step 7, skipping steps
3, 5, 6, my constitutional objection, my defence arguments.

Coroza relied on where Judge Belanger said he expected I
wouldn't be putting in a defence because I had said that I'd
be in "big trouble if the charges weren't quashed" which he
had taken to mean that it was more trouble than I could
handle, it was insurmountable trouble I could never handle,
trouble I could not even try to surmount and so Steps 3, 5
and 6 weren't necessary.

Justice Belanger on Dec 15 does give Turmel the opportunity
to put the argument in writing and gives him 30 days to do
that and gives the Crown another 30 days to respond. Coming
back on March 10 on this issue.

JCT: That was for the quash motion, not the constitutional
one that must await the decision on whether the charge needs
to be faced.

Coroza pointed out he finds me guilty me On March 10. Then I
raised this constitutional issue. He quoted S.111 about need
for proper notice of constitutional question. Yet, would a
lawyer have been denied. He says the Hitzig Court qualified
my argument as the "prophylactic" argument in paragraphs
177. They said no medical evidence presented.

LABROSSE J.A.: Any response?

TURMEL: Yes.

LABROSSE J.A.: Don't forget now, you only have...

TURMEL: No, no, I'm short. I've never been known to be
verbose. On Dec. 15 when I trial opened before Judge
Belanger, I filed an application to Quash, a Section 601
application to quash. I'd already applied for Prohibition
which had been rejected and I'd filed an appeal. I'm in
front of him and asked: can you wait until the Court of
Appeal finish on the Prohibition and the Certiorari? He
says: no I want to go ahead right away.

So I said: okay, Section 601, application to quash and I
handed it in. He said: I'm going to reserve my decision on
that. If you have any more arguments on that, submit them in
writing by these dates. But before I determine the
application to quash the charge, let's take a plea on the
charges that may or may not be there. I said: I don't want
to take a plea until I know if the charge is good or not. He
said: no we're going to start the trial and take the plea
right now. So I stood mute and pursuant to Section 606, he
entered a plea of not guilty for me and then said: now, what
we're going to do is start the trial before I decide whether
the charges are going to be quashed or not.

At that stage, maybe I should have put in my application for
constitutional remedy but I wanted to find out whether the
charges were quashed first and that was going happen on
March 10. So, he said: do you have any objection to these
Crown witnesses putting in their evidence, I said: no, I
don't object to it. As long as I don't lose any rights. I
had admitted everything anyway. None of the witnesses needed
to come up, the Crown agreed that what I'd written in my
previous statements were valid and so, let the witnesses go.

So, I was forced to plead before the decision on the Quash
was handed down, then he heard the evidence before the
decision on the Quash was handed down, but if the Quash
wasn't going to granted and I was going to be forced to go
ahead with the trial, I definitely wanted to wage the issue
of a constitutional right to this herb for prophylactic
reasons. That's an odd word "prophylactic" which sounds not
as effective as increasing my chance survival. Since the
death rate from all these diseases that it would be good for
would be reduced, it's hard to need more than the simple
acceptance of the statistics that if it's good for all these
things, Health Canada begrudgingly said it was, well, it
will prevent them for me too. I'll never have an epileptic
fit if I can have a joint nearby.

So on the basis that I was expecting a decision on the quash
before the trial starts, after the decision on the quash I
will file my constitutional motion, then when the judge
comes back and says: I'm handing down the decision on the
Quash and at the same time I'm convicting you because you
said things don't look if the law isn't invalid. And yes
things don't look good but it didn't mean I didn't want to
enter the fact that I had more when they charged me with
less, or the fact that intend to traffic but intended to
permit inspection. I had what I thought were two valid
defences and I never got a chance to put them in. So I'm
presenting them now on the fact that the judge should have
quashed the charges or not before starting the trial. And by
moving pieces of the trial out of position, I don't think
it's fair for him to hold me responsible, that I give up my
right to a constitutional motion because he jumped ahead of
the after-Quash decision. So, he wants to jump ahead without
handling the Quash, he should have still allowed me the
constitutional motion that came first. And I never got it.
So I'm raising it here. The "prophylactic" effect.

LABROSSE J.A.: You were sentenced...

TURMEL: Yes, a $1000 fine, 100 hours of community service
which is almost done and 3 years probation.

Clerk: Order.

LABROSSE J.A.: Judge Belanger refused to suspend the trial,
Mr. Turmel now appeals. Appeals C44587, C44588 are now moot.

As to the Appellants argument that S.5(2) was no longer
known to law, this court concluded that this offence remains
in full force and effect at the time that the appellant was
alleged to have committed the offence. These decisions are
binding on us.

JCT: The 3-judge Hitzig panel is only binding on this 3-
judge panel because the Chief Justice refused to let us have
a 5-judge panel when we asked while pointing out we needed a
5-judge court that was not bound by the Hitzig resurrection.
So Justice MrMurtry, by denying me a panel with power to
override Hitzig, fixed the case. During the appeal, I
pointed out how unfair it was to deny us a 5-judge panel
when requested and then use the fact they aren't a 5-judge
panel to deny power. So the case was railroaded from the
start.

So the court ducked the issue of whether the S.7 cultivation
and S.4 possession prohibitions remain invalidated by Krieger
at the Supreme Court of Canada by saying they were bound by
the Turmel [2003] case where the panel of three said the
Code didn't didn't have to be reprinted when some were
struck down, the judges would remember which written laws
were no longer valid and which were still valid.

Luckily, I still get to appeal my R. v. Turmel Section 5(2)
2003 decision that they say bind them here! So the appeal
Justice Binnie threw out as abandoned for want of one late
document last time gets finally in again.

This court says they can't overrule the previous court on
whether the prohibition on possession for evil intent is no
longer being valid when cultivation and possession
prohibitions were not valid at that time.

Remember, when I did my Parliament Hill demo on May 14 2003,
I was busted right in the middle of both the Parker
invalidation of Section 4 prohibition on possession from
Terry Parker Day Aug. 1 2001 to Hitzig Day Oct 7 2003 when
Alan Young says the court resurrected the law, but also the
Krieger invalidation of Section 7 prohibition on cultivation
(and possession, by implication) on Krieger Day Feb 4 2003,
60 days after the Crown lots its appellant's status after
the Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal and they
failed to apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of
Canada.

Just as Aug. 1 2001 was Terry Parker Day after Terry got the
possession invalidated until Oct 7 2003 when Professor Alan
Young got the prohibition re-validated by a court, Feb 4
2003 is Krieger day for Section 7 cultivation up until Oct 7
2003 when they say Hitzig brought Section 7 back to life
too.

So the court severed my Prohibition, Certiorari, Conviction
appeals from Pierre's and Real's Prohibitions so they could
say that my challenges to the judge's jurisdiction become
moot once the judge just goes ahead and takes jurisdiction
anyway!

Wow. Incredible. You heard it here. In the old days, the
lower courts had to wait until the higher courts had dealt
with such appeals for prerogative remedy and they've since
sunk so low that lower courts that ignore them can short-
circuit them too. Har har har har. Lower courts short-
circuiting higher courts. Only in Ontario. Justice in
Blunderland.

Anyway, they can't ignore dealing with the substantive
challenge to prohibit charges by Pierre Drouin, legitimately
sick now-Medical-Marijuana-Exemptee, on exactly the same
objection to being charged under a law that was struck down
as unconstitutional at the Supreme Court of Canada as mine.

The Court dismissed my Certiorari appeal ruling that the
Crown did not improperly exercise its discretion in charging
me with "not more than 3Kg" when I had "more than 3Kg" and
I've have been due a jury trial if the truth had been told
on the indictment.

The Court ruled that I didn't rate having a constitutional
challenge that healthy people should be able to use cannabis
for prevention of all the diseases it's known to be good for
because I raised it after my conviction. They got that wrong
too.

Actually, I raised it immediately after the decision on my
pre-plea motion and before the judge skipped any defence and
jumped to conviction. So Justice Labrosse has that fact
wrong too. Imagine, handing down a pre-plea ruling and then
the conviction with nothing in between.

The judge's original decision on the Motion to Quash due to
Krieger, which was not mooted by the final decision, was not
dealt with by this Court, probably because it was similar to
the Prohibition argument which was mooted. But even if the
Krieger invalidation was mooted when raised in Prohibition,
it was not mooted when raised in a S.601 motion to quash
which the court failed to realize was there. Lots the
court didn't realize. Lots the Court got wrong. And there's
no quality control for judges who don't know what they're
doing.

So I can bring the Krieger argument back into my case when I
appeal my conviction to the Supreme Court of Canada along
with the refusals for my Certiorari and Prohibition appeals.

DROUIN & MARTIN PROHIBITION APPEALS:

Then they started on Pierre's appeal for Prohibition of
charges. Crown Francois Lacasse spoke in French. He
explained how "Krieger" Judge Acton had struck down The S.7
cultivation prohibition, suspended 1 year. O'Leary J.A.
grants Appellant a stay until further order of the appellate
court. Final Order of Appellate Court dismisses appeal. He
argued that the O'Leary stay had to be lifted and stays
alive until lifted (forever since there is no real
application process to apply to lift an non-real stay in a
closed file. The Appellant's Stay granted by O'Leary keeps
invalidation due to rights violation from taking effect
these last 4 years.

I'd already joked about how the Appellant's stay dies when
the Appellant's status dies when the appeal is dismissed but
that's the Crown alibi for busting the last 4 year's worth
of harmless growing Canadians. And now the Crown is forced
to rely on the Appellant's Stay surviving the end of
Appellant's status! After the last stand that the Supreme
Court of Canada lost too, their appellant's stay is extant
even after they are no longer appellant!

What an alibi. That alibi is the Krieger scandal. Lawyers
coming up with such a sleazily-weak pretext for the busting
to go on because an appellant's stay outlives the appeal!
What a lousy case for the Crown. So what is this "rush-to-
lunch" court going to do?

DROUIN: Premierement, the onze decembre deux mille...
Firstly, on December 11 2000, the court struck down
Cultivation Section 7. After that, on Dec 4 2002, at the
Court of Appeal, the appeal against Acton's S.7 decision is
dismissed. So, as it now goes, I'm claiming Section 7, like
Krieger, charged with Section 7, and like him, Section 5(2).
I'm not appealing here about Section 5(2), only Section 7.
There's absolutely no evidence that I was growing to
traffic.

LABROSSE J.A.: You haven't had your trial yet.

DROUIN: No. I just want to point out that I'm only here for
Section 7, not the Section 5(2).

JCT: Not the Section 5(2) Turmel's charged with that the
court said is valid, the Section 7 Drouin's charged with
that the Supreme Court of Canada said was invalid.

DROUIN: I'm trying to defend myself. Like Krieger, I'm a
medical case. And I'm here to say that Section 7 is dead.
Because, when we were charged, were were charged between
2001 and 2003, while the law was of no force and effect. The
law wasn't in force and effect during those two years and
it's during those two years that we were charged.

JCT: Actually, that's the Parker immunity to Section 4
possession. Pierre and Real actually also have Krieger
immunity because Krieger invalidated Section 7 on Feb 4
2003, they were charged in June 2003, and Alan Young says
his Hitzig court brought them back to life in October 2003.
They Pierre and Real are right in 9-month Krieger Section 7
cultivation invalidation window as well as the 26-month
Parker possession invalidation window too.

DROUIN: The Krieger case where the law was struck down. The
law was suspended. After a year, doesn't it fall dead if
Parliament doesn't bring in new legislation?

LABROSSE J.A.: But the decision striking down the law was
suspended and then that suspension was continued. It was
never lifted. So it's still suspended.

JCT: Remember, I've already pointed out how Krieger can't
apply to lift the Appellant's stay because you can't file an
application after the file is closed. So they're telling us
that the Court should have heard Iovinelli's application to
lift the stay at the end of the hearing which the Court of
Appeal refused to entertain because they knew it died with
the appellant's status. Evidently, these Ontario Court of
Appeal Justices don't know that Appellants' stays pending
appeal lapse with the end of the appeal and think such
imaginary applications can be entertained.

So there's Pierre's perfect case against the Krieger
decision being stayed stated and ready for final appeal.
Wow. And I'm going to have my name on that case with his.
Unless the court unconsolidates the judgments after
consolidating the appeals.

DROUIN: Wasn't that decision made at the Supreme Court?

LABROSSE J.A.: You still have a law while the Krieger ruling
is suspended.

DROUIN: It's the Supreme Court of Canada saying that Krieger
struck down Section 7.

LABROSSE J.A.: Still suspended.

JCT: Isn't the suspension dead after the appeal is finished?

LABROSSE J.A. After the suspension is lifted.

JCT: End of game. That's the whole case. 150,000 Canadians
were busted on the grounds that the Crown's Appellant Stay of
execution from a lower court continues after they've lost
all appeals with no way of applying to fix it. Or not.

DROUIN: I'm going on Krieger killing the law, that's all.

JCT: Crown Lacasse argued that the Krieger invalidation by
the highest court of Alberta was not binding on Ontario,
always forgetting how I pointed out that when the Ontario
Court of Appeal struck down the S.4 possession prohibition,
the federal Crown dropped charges all across Canada, not
just in Ontario. But that's a staple argument from the
Crown. Nothing's ever good anywhere but locally.

The Court finally dismissed their appeals for Prohibition
ruling the Appellant's Stay of the Acton invalidation
was in effect until the MMAR was fixed fixing the flaw so
the law never died.

When one thinks back to the warped rulings of the Hitzig
Court of Appeal that now cover their hands in blood, these
decisions are just more of the same. Three more judges with
the blood of 4 dead epileptics a day on their judicial
consciences. Conscience from lawyers. Har har har har.

Five Applications for Leave to Appeal due by April 23 with
simple issues of appeal against Justice in Blunderland.


--
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