JCT: Pierre Drouin and Real Martin are using the Krieger
Section 7 invalidation to argue their Section 7 charges are
no longer known to law. I'm using it to argue my Section
5(2) "possession for the purpose of trafficking" charge is
too.

1) "Krieger" motion to prohibit prosecution
-------------------------------------------

File Number: #
Appeal Court No: 44587
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
(ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO)

BETWEEN:
John C. Turmel

Applicant
Appellant in appeal
and
Her Majesty The Queen
Respondent
Respondent in appeal

NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
JOHN C. TURMEL, APPLICANT
(Pursuant to S.59(4) of the Supreme Court Act)

TAKE NOTICE that Applicant John Turmel hereby applies for
leave to appeal to the Court in forma pauperis pursuant to
Section 59(4) of the Supreme Court Act from the judgment of
Justices Labrosse, Sharpe and Blair of the Court of Appeal
for Ontario C44587 made Feb 23 2007 dismissing the appeal
against the Nov 10 2005 refusal by MacLeod J. to prohibit
prosecution under CDSA Section 5(2).

AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that this application for leave is
made on the grounds that the R. v. Krieger decision
invalidating the CDSA Section 7(1) prohibition on
cultivation of marijuana and the Parker decision
invalidating the S.4(1) prohibition on possession were never
re-enacted by Parliament since their repeal.
Dated at Brantford on Apr 23 2007.
For the Applicant:
John C. Turmel, B. Eng.


APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM
JOHN TURMEL, APPLICANT
(Pursuant to Section 59(4) of the Supreme Court Act)

PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS:

1. Section 4 of the CDSA says it is illegal to possess
anything on Schedule II of banned substances. Schedule II
has "marijuana" on the list. When the marijuana prohibition
in s.4 of the CDSA became invalid after July 31 2001,
without adding the words "except for marijuana" in Section
4, the only way left to effect the repeal of the prohibition
in Section 4 was the deletion of "marijuana" from Schedule
II of banned substances.

2. On Oct 7 2003, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in an
appeal of the May 20 2003 ruling of Aitken J. dismissing an
application to prohibit prosecution as no longer known to
law on the basis of the Parker invalidation of the
possession prohibition in S.4(1):
[1] On May 14, 2003 Mr. Turmel was charged with possession
of marihuana for the purposes of trafficking pursuant to s.
5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996,
c.19 (the CDSA).
[2] On May 26, 2003 Mr. Turmel brought a motion in the
Superior Court of Justice seeking in effect to have this
charge stayed. Aitken J. dismissed the motion and Mr. Turmel
now appeals from her order.
[3] He makes only one argument. It is founded on the order
made by this court in R. v. Parker (2000), 146 C.C.C. (3d)
193 declaring the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 of the CDSA
to be invalid and suspending the declaration for 12 months.
Mr. Turmel says that since s. 4 prohibits possession of any
substance included in, inter alia Schedule II (which lists
marihuana) this court's declaration can only be effected
(now that the 12 months has passed) by deleting marihuana
from Schedule II. He argues that this must remove marihuana
from Schedule II for all purposes. Section 5(2), like s. 4,
relies on the listing of marihuana in Schedule II to create
the charge of possession of marihuana for the purposes of
trafficking. Mr. Turmel says that the Parker declaration
means that there was no such charge on May 26, 2003, since
it deletes marihuana from Schedule II.
[4] While there are questions about whether this motion was
properly brought, and whether the Superior Court had
jurisdiction to hear it, we prefer to deal with this appeal
by addressing directly the argument made by Mr. Turmel.
[5] It is based on a fundamental misconception. A
declaration does not delete a provision from a statute.
Pursuant to s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 its
effect is to render the provision of no force or effect to
the extent of its inconsistency with the provisions of the
Constitution.
[6] The declaration of invalidity made by this court in
Parker8 supra, does not delete marihuana from Schedule II of
the CDSA. It simply declares that the reference to marihuana
in Schedule II is of no force or effect for the purposes of
the possession charge in s. 4 of the CDSA. The declaration
does not extend to any other section of the CDSA. In
particular, it does not diminish the effect of the listing
of marihuana in Schedule II for the purposes of s. 5(2) of
the CDSA. As a result, the charge of possession of marihuana
for the purposes of trafficking existed on May 26, 2003.
[7] Thus Aitken J. was correct to dismiss the appellant's
argument and we would dismiss his appeal.

3. On Dec 23 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the
Crown application for leave to appeal the decision of the
Alberta Court of Appeal that dismissed the Crown's appeal
against a Dec 11 2000 decision of Acton J. which struck down
the cultivation prohibition in S.7(1) so that, pursuant to
S.2(2) of the Interpretation Act, it is deemed repealed.
With the Applicant charged after the S.4(1) possession
prohibition had been repealed on in 2001 and after the
S.7(1) cultivation prohibition had been repealed in 2003, it
is even more arguable that with no changes in the Criminal
Code to reflect both invalidations, the effect of the
invalidation would have been to delete "marijuana" from the
schedule of banned substances.

4. On Nov 28 2005, MacLeod J. dismissed an application to
prohibit prosecution as no longer known to law on the basis
of the 2001 Parker invalidation of the possession
prohibition in S.4(1) and the 2003 Krieger invalidation of
the cultivation prohibition in S.7(1).

5. On Jun 12 2006, Ontario Court of Appeal Chief Justice Roy
McMurtry denied Appellant's request for a panel of 5 judges
necessary to overturn the 3-judge Aitken ruling that the
legislation need not be re-written to reflect the
invalidations when judges can remember which written laws
aren't valid,
App. 1 Ont.C.A. McMurtry J. refuses 5 judge panel..Jun 12/06

7. On Feb 23 2007, the 3-judge Ontario Court of Appeal panel
dismissed the appeal saying it was bound by the earlier 3-
judge Aitken ruling that established S.5(2) is known to law.
App.1 Ont.C.A. McMurtry J. refuses 5 judge panel 2006 Jun 12

PART II - ISSUES

8. Did the Chief Justice err in not providing the 5-judge
panel necessary to overrule the earlier 3-judge decision?

9. When legislation is struck down by the courts, must the
government re-print the legislation to effect the repeal or
count on the courts to remember where the written law no
longer applies?

PART III - ARGUMENT

10. When the Chief Justice refused to provide a panel that
was not bound by the earlier 3-judge panel's decision, the
appeal had no chance of success and should be adjudicated.

11. The invalidation of the prohibition on marijuana
cultivation in S.7(1) by the Alberta Court of Appeal in R.
v. Krieger in 2003 added to the already invalidated
prohibition on marijuana possession in the S.4(1) by the
Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Parker in 2001 also
invalidated the prohibitions in all other related sections.



































12. S.4(1) says it is an offence to possess anything on
"Schedule II of banned substances." S.7(1) says it is an
offence to cultivate anything on "Schedule II of banned
substances." Applicant's S.5(2) says it is an offence to
possess for the purpose of trafficking anything on the
"Schedule II of banned substances."

13. If the prohibition on the possession of marijuana became
invalid in 2001, how was that reflected in the Criminal Code
when the government didn't change anything? Since the
Government did not enact the words "except for marijuana" in
S.4(1)'s prohibition of possession, the only way left to
effect the repeal of the prohibition was the deletion of
"marijuana" from Schedule II of banned substances.

14. Leaving repealed legislation on the books and counting
on the judiciary to remember, or the bar to remind the
judiciary to remember when the written word does not apply,
has resulted in the third biggest foul-up in Canadian legal
history , the staying of 4000 improper prosecutions
under the repealed S.4(1) statute in Dec 2003 when the Court
of Appeal found the marijuana prohibition in s.4 of the CDSA
to be invalid two years after the fact.

15. Further, the judiciary and the bar forgot while 100,000
bogus convictions were registered and not expunged. This is
the second biggest foul-up in Canadian legal history because
the court has ruled that there is no need to insist on a
strict written word and counts on judges having unfailing
memories in keeping up with the latest developments in
jurisprudence. Which, in this case, they obviously failed to
do. This explains why the strict interpretation of criminal
statutes with no reliance on judicial memory has always been
previously insisted upon.

16. And the biggest foul-up in Canadian legal history are
the 200,000 bogus prosecutions since the Krieger
invalidation of the cultivation and possession offences due
to the Crown's assertion that the Crown's Appellant's stay
remains in force after the Crown lost it's Appellant status.
All bogus prosecutions should be corrected.

PART IV - ORDER SOUGHT

11. Applicant seeks leave to appeal the Oct 7 2003 and Feb
23 2007 judgments of the Ontario Court of Appeal for an
Order declaring that the word "marijuana" had to have been
deleted from Schedule II for all sections of the CDSA.

PART V - SUBMISSIONS ON COSTS

13. Applicant had no submissions on costs.

PART VI - TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

14. None.

PART VII - DOCUMENTS TO BE USED

Ont.C.A. McMurtry J. refuses 5 judge panel Par.5
Dated at Brantford on Apr 23 2007
The Appellant: John C. Turmel, B. Eng.,

JCT: So the last Supreme Court challenge to the "judges will
remember which written laws don't count" that was dismissed
by Justice Binnie as "abandoned" for getting one signed
document in late, gets heard again anyway since that is the
decision this court had no power to overrule.
---

2) Certiorari "no jurisdiction without jury"
-----------------------------------------------

File Number: #
Appeal Court No: 44588
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
(ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO)
BETWEEN:
John C. Turmel
Applicant
Appellant in appeal
and
Her Majesty The Queen
Respondent
Respondent in appeal

NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
JOHN C. TURMEL, APPLICANT
(Pursuant to S.59(4) of the Supreme Court Act)

TAKE NOTICE that Applicant John Turmel hereby applies for
leave to appeal to the Court in forma pauperis pursuant to
Section 59(4) of the Supreme Court Act from the judgment of
Justices Labrosse, Sharpe and Blair of the Court of Appeal
for Ontario C44588 made Feb 23 2007 dismissing the appeal
against the Nov 28 2005 judgment of Justice MacLeod for an
Order of Certiorari declaring that the Provincial Court has
no jurisdiction to adjudicate the trial of an accused found
to be in possession of more than 3KG without first putting
the accused to an election.
Dated at Brantford on Monday April 23 2007.
John C. Turmel, B. Eng.

APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM
JOHN TURMEL, APPLICANT
(Pursuant to Section 59(4) of the Supreme Court Act)

PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS:

1. The indictment contains a deliberate lie to deny accused
an election which the courts have refused to correct.

2. On May 14 2003, Applicant was arrested on Parliament Hill
with 3.3 Kilograms of marijuana to remain above the
jurisdiction of single judges who may only try matters
dealing with less than 3Kg without an election.

3. The Crown charged Applicant with possession of less than
3KG to deny a jury trial.

4. On April 19, 2005, Appellant applied to Wright J. for an
Order compelling the Crown to offer Appellant an election
since the evidence showed the amount of the matter on the
Information was in error. Wright J. dismissed the challenge
to his court's jurisdiction.
App.2: Transcript of Wright J. hearing

5. On December 11 2005, an application to MacLeod J. for
certiorari to remove the case from the court without
jurisdiction to the Superior Court with jurisdiction over
amounts in excess of 3Kg was heard and dismissed.
App.3: Transcript of MacLeod J. hearing

6. The decision in R. v. Sewell 2003 SKCA 52 was presented
to explain the criteria for an election on the basis of the
amount of substance in the matter.
App.1 R. v. Sewell 2003 SKCA 52

7. On Feb 23 2007, an appeal was dismissed by the Ontario
Court of Appeal on the grounds that once the judge had
forged ahead with the charges, the challenge to the judge's
jurisdiction became moot.

PART II - ISSUES

8. Does Provincial Court have jurisdiction over an accused
who was found to be in possession of more than 3Kg of
marijuana without an election.

9. Does a judge gain jurisdiction by forging ahead despite a
challenge to the jurisdiction.

PART III - ARGUMENTS

10. The Criminal Code says that Provincial Court has no
jurisdiction over an accused who is in possession of more
than 3Kg of marijuana without an election. Keeping a false
allegation of possession of less than 3Kg which is not based
upon the evidence of 3.3Kg is an abuse of the court's
process.

11. Had the Court of Appeal ruled that the judge had no
jurisdiction, the lower court decision would have been
mooted but a lower court decision does not mooten a higher
court challenge to its jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal got
its mooting backward.

PART IV - ORDER SOUGHT

12. Appellant seeks leave to appeal for an Order declaring
that Applicant should have been given an election as to
whether to be tried by judge alone or by judge and jury and
for any other relief this court may deem appropriate.

PART V - SUBMISSIONS ON COSTS

13. Applicant had no submissions on costs.

PART VI - TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
R. v. Sewell 2003 SKCA 52 Par.6
R. v. Turmel Transcript of Wright J. hearing Par.4
R. v. Turmel Transcript of MacLeod J. Par.5

PART VII - DOCUMENTS TO BE USED
- R. v. Sewell 2003 SKCA 52
- R. v. Turmel Transcript of Wright J. hearing
- R. v. Turmel Transcript of MacLeod J.

Dated at Brantford on Apr 23 2007
The Appellant: John C. Turmel, B. Eng.,
---

3) No constitutional motion or defence allowed
----------------------------------------------

File Number: #
Appeal Court No: 45295
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
(ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO)
BETWEEN:
John C. Turmel
Applicant
Appellant in appeal
and
Her Majesty The Queen
Respondent
Respondent in appeal

NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
JOHN C. TURMEL, APPLICANT
(Pursuant to S.59(4) of the Supreme Court Act)

TAKE NOTICE that Applicant John Turmel hereby applies for
leave to appeal to the Court in forma pauperis pursuant to
Section 59(4) of the Supreme Court Act from the judgment of
Justices Labrosse, Sharpe and Blair of the Court of Appeal
for Ontario C45295 made Feb 23 2007 dismissing the appeal
against the March 10 2006 conviction by Belanger J. under
Section 5(2) of the CDSA on the grounds the Applicant's
rights under Section 7 of the Charter were violated by
prohibition of marijuana for medical preventative purposes
or that the defences of necessity and other intent should
have been permitted.
Dated at Brantford on Monday April 23 2007.
John C. Turmel, B. Eng.

APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM
JOHN C. TURMEL, APPLICANT
(Pursuant to S.59(4) of the Supreme Court Act)

1. 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.

2. Before pleading, the accused filed a S.601 "pre-plea"
motion to quash charges 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 after Jul 31 2001 and by the
Krieger Court of Appeal of Alberta after Feb 2 2003 using
the same arguments as detailed the application for leave to
appeal for prohibition of S.7 charges to the Supreme Court
by Pierre Drouin.
3. Judge Belanger reserved his decision on the pre-plea
application to quash the charges to March 10 2006 but
insisted on starting the trial before ruling on whether
there would even be a trial.

4. The accused refused to plead until the motion to quash
had been dealt with standing mute. The judge ordered that a
"not guilty" plea be entered and permitted the Crown to
present its evidence then adjourned until March 10 2006.

5. On March 10 2006, Judge Belanger handed down his prepared
written judgment dismissing the pre-plea application to
quash and then handing down a conviction without allowing
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.

6. On March 29 2006, Applicant was sentenced to a $1000
fine, 100 hours of community service and the maximum 3 years
probation.

7. On Feb 23 2007, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds
the Court of Appeal in 2003 ruled that the charges under
S.5(2) were not unknown to law. The Court ruled that my
being given the disjointed opportunity to present written
arguments (with respect to the S.601 application, not the
constitutional challenge), the decision of the trial judge
not to hear the Charter issue was properly exercised.

PART II - QUESTIONS IN ISSUE

7. Is the Section 5(2) prohibition still known to law?

8. Was it correct for the judge to refuse to hear the
Charter challenge for preventative medical use after
permitting a disjointed trial to proceed before the motion
to quash had been dealt with?

9. Should the judge have permitted the accused to raise the
defence of necessity or the defence of no intent to traffic,
only an intent to permit inspection?

PART III - STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT

10. The Hitzig Court of Appeal could not resurrect,
revalidate, bring penal laws back to life and the charge
should have been quashed as unknown to law due to the Parker
invalidation of the Section 4(1) possession offence and the
Krieger invalidation of the S.7(1) cultivation offence. If
cultivation and possession are no longer known to law,
intent to traffic can no longer be imputed due to mere
possesion.

11. Prohibition of cannabis medication used for prevention
of disease is just as much a violation of the Applicant's
Charter right to health as for those for whom it is
alleviation or cure of actual disease. Such a Charter
challenge is of national importance and should have been
permitted, especially given the disjointed nature of the
proceeding.

12. The judge had no right to jump to the conclusion that
because the accused quipped "I'm in big trouble" that it was
"too big" trouble and that that no defence was going to be
presented. The accused should also have been permitted the
chance to raise the defence of necessity and the defence of
"other intent" than to traffic.

PART IV - ORDER SOUGHT

13. Appellant seeks leave to appeal the decision of the
Court of Appeal to overturn the conviction and declare that
applicant's rights pursuant to Section S.7 of the Charter
have been infringed by the prohibition of the medical use of
marijuana for prevention of illness.

PART V - SUBMISSIONS ON COSTS

14. Applicant had no submissions on costs.

PART VI - TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
No authorites

PART VII - DOCUMENTS TO BE USED
No documents to be used.

Dated at Brantford on Apr 23 2007
The Appellant: John C. Turmel, B. Eng.,


--
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