JCT: I just got the official endorsement of the Ontario
Court of Appeal for my three Prohibition, Certiorari, and
Conviction appeals. Being all consolidated into one case
allowed the court to forget some parts and get their
jurisdiction backwards. My parsing commentary after the
complete short decision:

Date: 20070228
Docket: C45295, C44587, C44588

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) - and - JOHN C.
TURMEL (Appellant)

BEFORE: Justices Labrosse, Sharpe, Blair

COUNSEL: The appellant in person
Steve Coroza and Francois Lacasse for the respondent

HEARD & RELEASED ORALLY: Feb 23 2007

On appeal from the conviction entered on March 10 2006 and
the sentence imposed on March 29 2006 by Justice Paul R.
Belanger

ENDORSEMENT

COURT: [1] In this case the trial judge refused to suspend
the proceedings pending the determination of Mr. Turmel's
appeal on the prerogative remedies and he proceeded with the
trial. Mr. Turmel was convicted and sentenced. His appeals
C44587 and C44588 (the prerogative remedies) are now moot as
he has been convicted and now appeals his conviction.

[2] The appeal is premised on the argument that the
possession for the purpose of trafficking is not an offence
known to law. Mr. Turmel's enthusiastic arguments face and
insurmountable hurdle. This court has already rejected these
types of arguments (see R. v. Turmel (2003) 177 C.C.C. (3d)
333 (Ont.C.A.) and Hitzig v. Canada (2003), 177 C.C.C. (3d)
449 (Ont.C.A.)) 3873 and concluded that these offences
remained in full force and effect. This applies at the time
the appellant is alleged to have committed them. These
decision are binding upon us and we agree with them.

[3] The appellant admitted the Crown's case at trial and was
properly convicted. There is no merit to the argument the
Crown did not properly exercise its discretion in the manner
that it charged with the appellant.

[4] At trial, Mr. Turmel was given full opportunity to
present written argument on any issue he wished to raise
prior to conviction. It is only after his conviction, and
without notice, that he raised the Charge argument he now
asserts. The decision of the trial judge not to exercise his
discretion to hear the Charter issue was properly exercised.

[5] The appeal is dismissed.
Labrosse, Sharpe, Blair JJ.A.

JCT: So now some commentary in preparing for the final three
applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of
Canada.

COURT: ENDORSEMENT
[1] In this case the trial judge refused to suspend
the proceedings pending the determination of Mr. Turmel's
appeal on the prerogative remedies and he proceeded with the
trial.

JCT: Notice they don't mention that both prerogative
remedies were challenges to the judge's jurisdiction.
Certiorari for being in the wrong court, Prohibition for
being in court on a repealed law. If the appeals had been
heard last year (!) when they were adjourned to find French
judges, the trial judge may have lost his jurisdiction. But
the Ontario Court of Appeal registrar delaying those two
appeals for prerogative remedy by one year let the judge
below go forward before finding out whether he had no
jurisdiction or not.

COURT: Mr. Turmel was convicted and sentenced. His appeals
C44587 and C44588 (the prerogative remedies) are now moot as
he has been convicted and now appeals his conviction.

JCT: I wonder if they would have been mooted if I had not
appealed, just counted on getting his jurisdiction
nullified.
Anyway, the court has used the function of the word "moot"
backward. Had the Court of Appeal found Provincial Court had
no jurisdiction over matters of "more than 3 Kilograms,"
Justice Belanger's decision would have been mooted, no
longer necessary, solved. To reverse that so that a lower
court judge can who just goes ahead before the higher court
can rule on his power mootens the challenge to his power.
Pretty incredible to think Justices Labrosse, Sharpe and
Blair, three of Ontario's top judges, could get something so
elementary wrong. What's new from Justice in Blunderland. Of
course, it is a handy pretext to simply pass a fixed case up
the ladder.

COURT: [2] The appeal is premised on the argument that the
possession for the purpose of trafficking is not an offence
known to law.

JCT: While the cultivation and possession offences are not
known to law, possession for an evil intent can't be known
to law either. As Justice Earle-Renton noted, it can't be
illegal to possession for an evil purpose if it's legal to
possess. Always made sense to me but didn't enter the Hitzig
court's thinking. Nor this one's.

COURT: Mr. Turmel's enthusiastic arguments face and
insurmountable hurdle. This court has already rejected these
types of arguments (see R. v. Turmel (2003) 177 C.C.C. (3d)
333 (Ont.C.A.) and Hitzig v. Canada (2003), 177 C.C.C. (3d)
449 (Ont.C.A.)) 3873 and concluded that these offences
remained in full force and effect. This applies at the time
the appellant is alleged to have committed them. These
decision are binding upon us

JCT: They are only binding because Chief Justice Roy
McMurtry did not grant my request for the 5-judge panel
needed to not be bound by the previous 3-judge panel. So my
court was only bound because they wouldn't give me enough
judges to be unbound! How sleazy. I lost because I was
refused the right number of judges!

COURT: and we agree with them.

JCT: Oh, so that makes it all right. Since this 3-judge
court agrees with the previous 3-judge panel, it doesn't
matter that I wasn't given enough judges to deal with the
issue, I'd have lost anyway.

COURT: [3] The appellant admitted the Crown's case at trial

JCT: I admitted the Crown's evidence.

COURT: and was properly convicted.

JCT: Without defence by constitutional challenge or defence
arguments.

COURT: There is no merit to the argument the Crown did not
properly exercise its discretion in the manner that it
charged with the appellant.

JCT: False information on the indictment's okay by them .

COURT: [4] At trial, Mr. Turmel was given full opportunity
to present written argument on any issue he wished to raise
prior to conviction.

JCT: It was written argument on the Section 601 pre-plea
application to quash, not on the after-plea constitutional
motion, not on any after-plea defence argument to the
charge.

COURT: It is only after his conviction, and without notice,
that he raised the Charge argument he now asserts.

JCT: I had prepared a Notice of Application for
Constitutional challenge to be filed only once the charge
had not been quashed and was ruled valid. But since the
judge had already written his after-trial conviction
decision with pre-plea decision, he wouldn't allow the next
defence steps into the proceeding.

My constitutional notice was given right after the decision
on my pre-plea motion to quash when it should have been, not
after conviction, and I gave notice as soon as possible
after the finding out the charge was not going to be quashed
and I was going to have to go to trial. To a trial the judge
had started up before deciding on whether the charge was
valid.
The judge made me plead and heard evidence before ruling on
the pre-plea challenge to the validity of the charge. After
he handed down his ruling on the pre-plea motion, I wanted
to go to the next stage after plea, the constitutional issue
since he had already put in my not guilty plea before the
ruling on the pre-plea motion! Anyway, the judge handed down
a pre-plea decision with the conviction decision. I pointed
out the disjointed proceeding. And now this court agrees
with it. I can't think of a fitter judicial epitaph for this
court than they endorsed what happened to me below!

COURT: The decision of the trial judge not to exercise his
discretion to hear the Charter issue was properly exercised.

JCT: So my constitutional argument that denial of marijuana
for preventative use violates my right doesn't get
considered "properly." Must wait for the next case.

COURT: [5] The appeal is dismissed.

JCT: So Justices Labrosse Sharpe and Blair certify the
disjointed railroading I got in the court below was
righteous. It does make one wonder where judges get their
learning about fairness to so consistently produce such
deviant rulings.
I can't wait to hear how they rationalize Pierre Drouin's
Krieger claim. Probably that the Alberta Court of Appeal
Appellant's Stay of the Acton invalidation continues to hold
off invalidation of the Section 7 prohibition on forever
even after appellant loses the appellant's status as
appellant. The Acton decision delayed by an appellant's stay
after the appellant is no longer the appellant. Har har har
har har. Can't wait to hear it in writing officially.

Stay tuned for more 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