JCT: As agent in Terry Parker's claim for return of medpot
seized by Canada Post, (do people still use government
instead of private couriers?), I got to answer the Crown's
bogus arguments. What fun.

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
(Criminal Division)

Between:
Terrance Parker
Applicant

and
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent

APPLICANT'S REPLY TO CROWN FACTUM

1. In the Respondent's Factum, the Crown says it disagrees
with the allegations of fact contained in the Applicant's
Written Representations and presents its own version. In
Para.6, the Crown alleges as fact: "On July 30 2001, the
Government enacted the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations
(MMAR). The MMAR provided seriously ill persons with a
process by which they could obtain an authorization to
possess marijuana (ATP).

2. The real fact is that the 2003 Parker II (Hitzig) Court
of Appeal ruled that the 2001 MMAR had NOT "provided
seriously ill persons with a process by which they could
obtain an ATP" even if it did provide access for "SOME"
seriously ill persons. Despite reading Applicant's true
allegation of fact that the July 30 MMAR exemption process
had not solved his Aug. 1 court-exemption expiry dilemma,
the Crown's allegation of fact that the MMAR worked to
provide access is clearly wrong.

3. In Para.7, the Crown wrote: "At the end of this twelve-
month period, on July 30 2001, the MMAR were enacted so as
to cure the constitutional invalidity identified by the
Court of Appeal. The following day, on July 31, 2001, the
Applicant's constitutional exemption expired. Thus, as of
July 31 2001, the government and the Applicant believed that
the Applicant was once again subject to the prohibition on
the possession of marijuana."

4. The Parker Two Court eventually ruled that the
prohibition became invalid on the same day that the MMAR
missed the deadline for preventing Parker from being put
back in unconstitutional jeopardy, i.e., that the
invalidation of the S.4 CDSA prohibition on possession had
taken effect was to be deemed repealed pursuant to S.2(2) of
the Interpretation Act after July 31 2001. That the
government and even the Applicant may have believed that the
Applicant was once again subject to the prohibition on the
possession of marijuana in 2001 when the Parker Two Court
only said so later in 2003 didn't mean he was subject to an
invalid statute. Having been involved in a series of federal
court actions against Health Canada, Engineer John Turmel
was aware and celebrating that the prohibition had been
repealed due to a missed deadline, a fumble in the end zone,
by the Ministries of Justice and Health. Even presuming the
Crown's conclusion later-proven-wrong that the July 31 MMAR
had worked to keep the CDSA possession prohibition in S.4
valid, Parker's Sheppard S.7 exemption to cultivate still
remained in force.

5. In Paragraph 8: "Commencing on July 23 and Aug 8 2001,
the Applicant began to take steps to ensure that he would
not be charged with the offence of possession of marihuana.
In particular, the Applicant's counsel wrote to Health
Canada to request that the Applicant be granted an extension
of his exemption from the offence prohibiting the possession
of marijuana."

6. Because then-counsel Aaron Harnett, like all lawyers in
Canada, had not realized that his Parker One Invalidation
Order of S.4 had taken effect on Terry Parker Day 2001
doesn't change the fact that Parker Two later ruled it had
taken effect on Terry Parker Day. So, counsel sought
protection for Parker thinking the prohibition was still
valid. Even I, as Parker's legal coach, also later sought
protection for Parker while knowing the S.4 prohibition
wasn't valid because the cops who would be busting him and
lawyers and judges trying him didn't know it yet.

7. In Para.9: "On Sep 14, 2001, Health Canada notified the
Applicant that he had been granted, pursuant to S.56 of the
CDSA, a six-month exemption from the laws that prohibit the
possession of marijuana to give him an opportunity to apply
for an ATP exemption to expire on March 14 2002."

8. Parker was granted a ministry exemption six weeks too
late after the prohibition he was being exempted from had
already been repealed.

9. In Para.11, the Crown alleges as fact: "On March 13 2002,
the day before the expiry of his exemption, Applicant
commenced an Ontario Superior Court application requesting a
continuation of his "constitutional exemption from the
offence of possession of marijuana and an order "declaring
prohibition of marijuana in the CDSA to be of no force and
effect."

10. This is false. This is what Parker One sought and won, a
declaration that S.4 was of no force and effect, suspended 1
year. Parker Two was not seeking the very same thing again.
Parker Two was for a declaration that it was invalid "since
Aug. 1 2001" Terry Parker Day. The Crown deleted "since Aug.
1 2001" to distort the fact Parker Two was about when Terry
Parker Day had taken place. Adding to the confusion
generated by the Crown's deletion of the fact is titling
this section "Hitzig" when we're still in March and the
Hitzig application wasn't filed until May.

11. The Crown continues: "On March 15 2002, Pitt J. granted
the Applicant his requested extension of his "constitutional
exemption" as granted by the Ontario Court of Appeal. The
federal Crown then moved to set aside the order of Justice
Pitt. On April 19 2002, Chapnik J. set aside the Order of
Pitt J."

12. Note that the Crown omits mention of the fact that the
Chapnik Order setting aside the extension granted by Pitt J.
of the exemption granted Parker by the Ontario Court of
Appeal under its jurisdiction over Criminal Code appeals was
set aside under the Civil Rules of Procedure. Pitt
J. issued an Order pursuant to his Criminal Code
jurisdiction and there is no provision but appeal for
reversing an Order of the Superior Court of criminal
jurisdiction. But the Crown proceeded under the Civil Rules
of Procedure for setting aside default judgments! Justice
Pitt 1) granted short notice, 2) granted dispensation of
service, 3) granted criminal jurisdiction remedy and the
Crown then moved to set it aside like a default judgment
that wasn't given any real thought, obvious contempt for the
court. That the Crown used Civil Court to set aside a
Criminal Court remedy is another inconvenient fact the Crown
would rather have dropped from its version.

13. The Crown continues: "The Applicant then sought to
appeal Chapnik and sought a stay pending appeal. On May 3,
2002, Feldman J.A. refused the request for a stay. On Feb 13
2003, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Applicant's
application for leave to appeal. On cross-examination,
however, the Applicant stated that he still believes that
the Pitt J. decision continues to authorize him to possess
and cultivate marihuana, for the reason that he believes
that Chapnik J. did not legally set aside the decision of
Pitt J."

14. Though Pitt J. could only be overturned by a Court of
Appeal of criminal jurisdiction, as Parker's legal coach, I
saw nothing to lose by his seeking remedy in the civil
"moot" court, not only appealing unsuccessfully but
unsuccessfully seeking a stay from a moot court and
unsuccessfully seeking leave to appeal that too. If he was
going to put up a fight, it may as well be with everything
he had, even in a moot court.

15. In para.12, the Crown alleges as fact: "The substantive
issues raised by the Applicant's March 13 2002 application
were heard together with two other applications, one of
which had been commenced by John Turmel and Marc Paquette,
and another which had been commenced by Hitzig and others.
In the fall of 2002, these three civil applications
concerning marijuana for medical reasons were heard together
by Lederman J. of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice."

16. It is not true that our appeals were "concerning
marijuana for medical reasons" because Turmel wasn't sick.
Obviously, Parker Two (et al) weren't there to prove
prohibition was unconstitutionally bad again like the Hitzig
ailers were doing anew. Parker had already won the
declaration of invalidity in Parker One. Parker Two had
nothing at all to do with medical use other than being
linked with the Hitzig straw horse to permit the distortion
that it also was medically related. Even the Crown seems
fooled by their its lies. Parker Two was over something that
non-sick Turmel wanted too, it was not over medical use that
the sick Hitzig et al were claiming.

17. The Crown continues: "On Jan 9 2003, Lederman concluded
absence of legal supply for authorized persons was
inconsistent with fundamental justice.

18. So Lederman J. did not even respond to the Parker Two
motion that the MMAR failed for the reason that it did not
provide protection for Parker by Terry Parker Day on Aug. 1
2001 as ordered by the Parker One Court because he responded
to the Hitzig motion that the MMAR failed for the new reason
that it did not provide a legal supply as not ordered by the
Parker Court. Even the Hitzig Court of Appeal noted how
Lederman J. had not dealt with the Parker Two argument that
the legislation that was to provide the necessary exemption
within 1 year (by Terry Parker Day) did not work to save the
CDSA S.4(1) possession prohibition on time. Having not dealt
with it at all, no reasons for his dismissal could be
referred to upon appeal.

19. The Crown continues: "Lederman declared the MMAR to be
unconstitutional and invalid on grounds the framework failed
to adequately resolve issues related to source and supply of
marijuana. However, Lederman J. suspended the declaration
for six months so as to permit the Government of Canada an
opportunity to amend the MMAR or otherwise provide for a
legal source."

20. And despite being told by Justice Pitt in March 2002
that the MMAR had failed to exempt Parker by July 31 2001 as
ordered in Parker One, and now being told by Justice
Lederman in January 2003 that the
MMAR had failed to provide a legal source, for a different
reason not ordered in Parker One! Yet with these two clear
Superior Court indications that the MMAR had not saved the
CDSA S.4 prohibition on possession of marijuana so that the
Parker One Declaration of invalidity had taken effect on
Terry Parker Day, the Crown did not inform Canada's
judiciary, nor amend the Criminal Code, nor stop busting
Canadians, the second biggest judicial snafu in Canadian
history. As for the suspension of the Lederman decision
striking down the MMAR for 6 months, the Crown infers that
if the MMAR can be saved before being struck, then the CDSA
which it was supposed to save 2 year earlier can also be
saved? So Lederman J.'s opinion the MMAR exemption didn't
save the CDSA prohibition on time isn't official for 6
months so it can't be said officially that the MMAR didn't
work yet because he suspended for six months to give the
chance to the government to fix it too late. So it cannot be
said that the CDSA became invalid even though everyone knows
the MMAR didn't work. Lederman said he was giving the
government more time to fix the MMAR to save the CDSA from
dying two years earlier. Sounds like Justice in Wonderland.

21. In para.13: All parties appealed the decision of
Lederman.

22. This is false. The Hitzigs were happy to have had their
motion to declare the MMAR supply a failure and did not
appeal. The Crown was happy to have a 6 month suspension to
try to save it so they could argue that with no official
declaration of invalidity of the MMAR, there was no official
declaration of invalidity of the CDSA on Terry Parker Day
even if it had never worked, everything in suspended
animation until they got it right, and did not appeal. Only
Parker and Turmel-Paquette still wanted the Terry Parker Day
Declaration and appealed. The Crown and the Hitzigs were
Respondents and Cross-Appellants but did not appeal. Only
Parker et al were Appellants. Mr. Leafloor, as counsel on
those appeals, knows all parties did not appeal yet keeps
repeating the strange falsehood. That only Parker et all
appealed is just another inconvenient fact the Crown wants
excised from the facts.

23. At para.14, the Crown mislabels the "Parker et al"
Ontario Court Appeal proceeding "Hitzig et al."

24. Justice Weiler fixed the style of cause as Appellant
Parker, then Respondent and Cross-Appellant Hitzig. The
Crown's June 2003 Application before Justice Carthy was
styled from Appellant Parker, Respondent Hitzig,.. Yet the
Court of Appeal reversed the style from Appellant Parker et
al to Respondent Hitzig et al, thus giving giving credit for
the Terry Parker Declaration not to Terry who moved for the
Terry Parker Day Declaration in Parker Two but to sham-
victor Alan Young case who did not move for the Terry Parker
Day Declaration in his Hitzig case. Oops, maybe it was just
a 3-judge typo so it goes down in the law books as Young's
Hitzig motion winning the Parker Day declaration instead
Turmel's Parker motion.

25. In Para.14: "On July 8 2003, pending the appeals of
Lederman, Health Canada developed policies to ensure the
MMAR remained valid.

26. This is false. the MMAR cannot have "remained valid" if
the court ruled they were "invalid." For it to "remain
valid," it would have to have been originally valid. Things
can only "remain" what they "used to be," or they must be
said to have reverted back from something else. It cannot
"remain" something different than it started out being. The
Crown's bad English has a sleazy purpose.

27. In Para.16: In addition, it dismissed the Applicant's
attempt to review the April 19 2002 decision of Chapnik J
(docket number 38113).

28. The reason given by Hitzig Court of Appeal for Ontario
is so laughable that the Crown can't even bring itself to
quote it here. The Court of Appeal said Chapnik J. was right
to set aside Superior Court Justice Pitt because the
application had not been served properly! Justices Doherty,
Goudge and Simmons must have forgotten that Superior Courts
can dispense with service altogether so how can there be
improper service? And this was ludicrous reason was the only
pretext for dismissal they had available! Besides, nowhere
in the lower court documentation was there any argument by
the Crown that Terry's personal service on their office had
in any way been remiss! The original reason they sought to
set Pitt's order aside as a default judgment in civil court
was because they had failed to show up! Terry had properly
served the documentation! The Court of Appeal made up the
"improper service" pretext as their last gasp to shut out
the implications of a valid Pitt ruling that the Government
had failed to comply with the court's order for the simple
reason of having left Parker unexempted.

29. The Crown continues: "The Court of Appeal determined
that the MMAR were constitutionally defective and... and
remedied the constitutional deficiencies it had
identified...

30. The Court in Parker One said it wasn't up to the courts
to remedy constitutional deficiencies, it was up to
Parliament. Who's to say they did it right, that they caught
all the errors. That's Parliament's prerogative, said the
Parker One Court, a prerogative the Hitzig Court has
improperly usurped in saying they have resurrected repealed
statures. Plus, the Hitzig Court of Appeal fixed the MMAR
too late to save the CDSA prohibition that had been repealed
once of no force and effect two years earlier.

31. In para.17: "As the Court remedied the deficiencies, the
MMAR continued to be constitutional...

32. This is false. Again, sleazy bad English is being used.
Just like it can only remain what it used to be, not what it
did not used to be, it can only "continue to be" what it
used to be, not what it did not used to be. So when the
Crown says "it continued to be constitutional," it presumes
it continues to be what it was, constitutional. But once
again, in this case, the court ruled it that it was
unconstitutional as of Terry Parker Day so the Crown can not
now say that it "continued to be constitutional." To use the
words "continue to be," you would have to say it "continued
to be unconstitutional," not "constitutional." Or it
reverted to from unconstitutional to constitutional. Since
it used to be unconstitutional, it now being constitutional
again cannot be said to mean "continued to be
constitutional." Again, sleazy rhetoric to try to evade that
the law used to be of no force and effect, repealed pursuant
to the Interpretation Act. The Crown version insists that it
"continues to be" valid to presume it was never been
invalid. So just like our real situation could not earlier
"remain" valid when it used to be invalid, it cannot now
"continue to be" constitutional when it used to be
unconstitutional.

33. The Crown continues: "and thus the prohibition on the
possession of marijuana under section 4 of the CDSA
continued to be constitutional as well."

34. This is false. If the statute used to be
"unconstitutional," it cannot have "continued being
constitutional." This is the third time for the same
rhetorical sleaze being chanted like a mantra.

35. In para.19, the Crown notes that John Turmel's and Terry
Parker's applications for leave to appeal were dismissed by
the Supreme Court of Canada.

36. The Crown's version fails to mention that they were not
dismissed after adjudication of the issues but dismissed as
abandoned without adjudication of any issues. They are all
being raised in the upcoming Turmel appeals to the SCC.

[continued...


--
Abolitionist Debt 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 USENET blog: alt.fan.john-turmel