JCT: The Crown often confuses this appeal for prohibition of
prosecution (#32011) with appeal against conviction #32013.

File Number: #32011
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

Response to Leave Application
Her Majesty The Queen
(Pursuant to Rule 27)

CR: PART I - RESPONDENT'S STATEMENT OF FACTS

Overview of the Respondent's Position

1. On May 14 2003, the Applicant was charged with possession
of marihuana for the purposes of trafficking pursuant to
section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
(CDSA). He was convicted by a judge sitting alone in the
Ontario Court of Justice on March 10 2006. The Applicant
admitted the facts but advanced the startling proposition
that he was not charged with an offence known to law. His
appeal from conviction to the Court of Appeal for Ontario
was dismissed. The Applicant continues to assert that he was
not charged with an offence known to law and that he should
have been afforded a five member panel before the Court of
Appeal to argue his case. This application ought to be
dismissed for the following reasons:
a) The application has no merit.
b) The issues raised are not of national or public
importance.

The Facts:

2. On May 14 2003, the Applicant faxed a letter to the
Department of Justice stating that he had marihuana that he
was going to drop off at various locations in Ottawa,
including Parliament Hill, the Prime Minister's office, the
Attorney General of Canada and to this Court. The Applicant
was arrested on Parliament Hill that same day while holding
a bag containing approximately 3.3 kilograms of marijuana
packaged in 7 bags.

JCT: One pound being dropped off at the House of Commons for
the Prime Minister's inspection, a pound for the Minister of
Justice, a pound for the Supreme Court of Canada, one for
Superior Court of Ontario, one for the R.C.M.P., one for the
Ottawa Police.

CR: 3. Between May 14 2003 (the day he was charged) and
March 10 2006 (the day he was convicted), the Applicant
brought a number of applications (in the form or prerogative
remedies) to prohibit the prosecution from continuing. He
was unsuccessful and convicted by Belanger J. on March 10
2006 on the charge of possession for the purpose of
trafficking marijuana contrary to section 5(2) of the CDSA.

JCT: Notice the dislocation "Applicant applications to
prohibit the prosecution from continuing unsuccessful (in
February 2007) and convicted by Belanger J. on March 10
2006. The Crown dropped the date of the end of the challenge
to his jurisdiction because the judge rushed ahead before
they could decide. Then the Court of Appeal ruled that a
ruling on the challenge to his jurisdiction was no longer
necessary because his rushing ahead meant he had could. Har
har har. No kidding. Ontario's highest Ontario court
Justices Labrosse, Sharpe and Blair all overruled by one
lowest Ontario Justice. Har har har har. So the Crown
dropped the Feb 2007 so they could switch the events in the
timeline to make it sound like Belanger ruled after my
challenge to his jurisdiction had been dismissed instead of
pointing out he ruled before my challenge to his
jurisdiction could be heard in 2007. Then the Court of
Appeal copped out.

CR: 4. The Applicant appealed the rulings dismissing his
applications for relief and his conviction.

JCT: Continuing the impression that the challenge to
jurisdiction in 2007 happened before the conviction decision
in 2006.

CR: His conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal for
Ontario because in its view the decisions in R. v. Turmel
(2003) 177 C.C.C. (3d) 533 (Ont.C.A.) and Hitzig v. Canada
(2003) 177 C.C.C. (3d) 449 (Ont.C.A.) were binding and that
possession for the purpose of trafficking marijuana was an
offence known to law.

JCT: That's why I needed 5 judges so they couldn't say they
were bound by the equal 3-judge panel. How often does anyone
ever ask for a 5-judge panel to overrule a 3-judge panel?
Almost never. So, when Justice Roy McMurtry refused to
provide sufficient judges to overrule the first court, I was
getting a stacked the deck.

CR: They further found that as the Applicant had admitted
the Crown's case at trial, he was properly convicted.

JCT: Sure Applicant admitted the facts, I always have. But I
didn't admit the Crown's case. Applicant happens to have
been deprived the chance to fight the Crown's case when
Judge Belanger went straight from pre-trial decision to
conviction skipping the constitutional challenge and the
defence parts of the trial. From the Section 601 pre-plea
motion to quash the charges to conviction in the same
decision, with no trial in between! I was rail-roaded and
retain the right to raise the issues. But not in this Appeal
for Prohibition, #32011. Skipping the defence part of the
trial is being argued in the Appeal from Conviction #32013.
Appeal for jury due more than 3 Kilograms is #32012. So I
was convicted but it's being argued it was "properly
convicted." Just no in this case file.

CR: PART II - QUESTIONS IN ISSUE

5. The Notice of Application appears to pose essentially two
questions:
i) When legislation is struck down, is Parliament required
to reprint the statute to effect the repeal?

JCT: Which the Crown did not do. So with no change to the
legislation, there was no change to the pattern of busting
resulting in the Parker 4000, the Parker Scandal's 100,00
bogus unerased convictions, and the Krieger 150,000 bogus
convictions since then.

CR: ii) Did the Chief Justice err in not providing the 5-
judge panel necessary to overrule the earlier 3-judge
decision in R. v. Turmel (2003) 177 C.C.C. (3d) 533
(Ont.C.A.)?

JCT: Here's the problem. They miss issue 3. We know we are
arguing the Appeal for Prohibition of prosecution issue here
but the Labrosse, Blair, Sharpe Court of Appeal did not
treat it separately from the conviction and the Crown
confuses the issues too. The court declared that whether the
law was dead or not didn't have to be decided since Judge
Belanger had just gone ahead without waiting to find out
what the Court of Appeal thought. So they copped out and
said Judge Belanger's ruling was binding on them.

CR: So the issue I'm raising here is whether the Krieger
invalidation took place. If it did, then my charge should be
prohibited not only because Section 4 and Section 7 were
invalid when I was busted (in the window of legality between
Turmel's Terry Parker Day Aug. 1 2001 when the possession
offence was found to have become invalid and Hitzig Day Oct
7 2003 when the possession offence was resurrected by Alan
Young fixing the MMAR.
But because I'm charged with "possession for evil purpose"
under Section 5(2) instead of the invalid "possession" under
Section 4(1), they say the invalidation of possession
prohibition does not apply to "possession for evil purpose"
too. My first Prohibition Court of Appeal found that the
Parker possession invalidation did not apply to me. I
appealed but Justice Binnie aborted my case because one
document was submitted late.
Now I'm back since the Krieger decision invalidated the
Section 7 cultivation (and by implication S.4 possession)
offence with a new grounds for prohibition. It was rejected
by MacLeod J. and this Court of Appeal then said that the
question of whether the law was alive after Krieger was no
longer relevant now that my judge had presumed the law was
alive and convicted me. With that cop out, I'm at the top
with the same appeals for prohibition against Section 5(2)
"for the purpose of trafficking" except that now I'm
pointing out possession for an evil purpose not only had no
possession offence to be based on but also had no
cultivation offence to be based on.
So Pierre Drouin's application ignored his S.5(2) purpose
charge in challenging only the Section cultivation charge, a
perfect Krieger "exempt by proof of sickness" applicant
demanding that the unjust prosecution be prohibited.
If he wins in establishing Krieger Day Feb 4 2003, then
there is proof Parker (Aug 1 2001) and Krieger had
invalidated both possession and cultivation at the time of
my arrest on May 14 2003 and before Alan Young could have
resurrected the prohibition again.

CR: 6. The Respondent submits not only that the foregoing
questions ought to be answered in the negative but that they
do not raise any issue of national importance that deserve
the attention of this Court especially since the medical use
of marihuana in Canada which is at the heart of the case law
upon which the Applicant relies to make his submission is
now settled law in Canada.

JCT: Medical use was for when I finally got to my
constitutional challenge after all avenues to prohibit or
quash the charges had been exhausted but Justice Belanger
skipped it and my defence to go straight from judgment on
pre-trial quash motion to conviction with no time for the
constitutional challenge and defence at trial in between.

CR: The Applicant has introduced no evidence that he has a
medical need for marihuana and his reliance on case law is
therefore misplaced.

JCT: Again, my desire to use marijuana for preventative
medical need was to be raised in the constitutional
challenge after my motion to quash had been decided. It was
skipped, not this prerogative motion to prohibit on the
grounds the prohibitions are no longer known to law. Since
I'm not raising any medical issues, my not having any
medical issues so far isn't a fatal deficiency. Har har har.
It's incredible how many times the Crown keeps repeating
that Turmel, the non-sick guy, is making a medical use case
when I'm not. I guess if they remain permanently confused,
the court can be expected to follow suit.

CR: PART III - ARGUMENT

A. Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking Marihuana has
Never Been Ruled Unconstitutional by Any Court in Canada.

7. The heart of the Applicant's argument lies in his
interpretation of a period of uncertainty in the province of
Ontario

JCT: The Parker Court of Appeal's Order declaring "the
marijuana prohibition in s.4 of the CDSA to be invalid" is
not hard to understand. The Crown professes to be
"uncertain" about what declaring a statute "to be invalid"
means. Maybe they should be working for the Ministry of
Agriculture instead of the Ministry of Justice. Did they
drop all 4000 remaining possession charges across all Canada
because they were uncertain "only in Ontario?"
One major question that has to be decided is whether
statutes struck down by the Ontario Court of Appeal apply to
Federal Crowns all across Canada and all charges were
properly dropped or only to Federal Crown Attorneys in
Ontario and Federal Crown dropping charges across all Canada
as just being compassionate. Har har har har.

CR: with respect to the enforceability of the offence of
simple possession of marijuana under section 4(1) of the
CDSA. The period of uncertainty involved a very precise time
frame between July 31 2001 and October 7 2003.

JCT: The period of time when the law was "uncertain" is the
same period of time as when the law was "invalid." All the
Crown can do is call it something less than is true!

CR: The Applicant's argument is anchored on the Court of
Appeal for Ontario's decision in R. v. Parker (2000) 146
C.C.C. (3d) 193 (Ont.C.A.) where the Court found s.4(1) of
the CDSA to be of no force and effect to the extent that it
failed to address the issue of possession of marijuana by
those who required it for medicinal purposes to treat
medical conditions.

JCT: What's to be uncertain about that? But the Parker Court
didn't add the "to the extent..." part. It says Order
"declaring the prohibition in S.4(1) to be invalid." Nothing
else about any extent. This is just another attempt to put
words in the Parker Court's mouth.

CR: 8. The uncertainty

JCT: "invalidity"

CR: persisted until the Court of Appeal for Ontario in a
series of decisions in October of 2003 settled the law in
Ontario with respect to simple possession of marijuana
'Hitzig v. Canada; R. v. J.P. (2003); and R. v. Turmel.

JCT: It's easier to say you're bringing a law that's been
uncertain back than a law that's been repealed for two
years. But even Alan Young claimed his Ontario Court of
Appeal Hitzig case "resurrected the law." And the Crown
calls re-enacting an invalid statute "settling it?" What
gall to just make up words instead of using the factual
ones. As if I'm going to forget the court "settling the law"
is really the court resuscitating a repealed law. They can't
resurrect the death penalty once invalidated and they
couldn't resurrect the possession prohibition once
invalidated. Remember how Crown Smith in Brantford when
asked to explain where one Ontario Court of Appeal for the
power to resurrect a statute that had been struck down by
another Ontario Court of appeal, he could only say they
wouldn't have done it if they couldn't have done it so they
can!

CR: The Court of Appeal concluded (i) that as of October 7
2003, the prohibition on simple possession of marijuana
under section 4(1) of the CDSA was of full force and effect

JCT: And the day before, it was not having been invalidated
by the Parker Court in 2001. But my Court of Appeal said
they couldn't overrule the Hitzig Court of Appeal but the
Hitzig Court of Appeal did overrule the Parker Court of
Appeal and say they were re-validating the prohibition.

CR: and (ii) that the period of legal uncertainty applied
"only" to the offence of possession of marijuana
simpliciter.

JCT: They just can't use the actual word in the Order, the
period of invalidity. Repeated use of "uncertainty" is their
way of hypnotizing less astute judges. Watch the watch, hear
the word "uncertainty," watch the watch, hear the word
"uncertainty," watch the watch...

CR: 9. Indeed, the Applicant (who has never claimed that he
has a medical need for marijuana)

JCT: I would have except that part of the trial, the
challenge that the law prohibiting preventative medical use
was unconstitutional, was skipped by Judge Belanger in his
rush to judgment. They keep repeating it, I keep knee-
jerking my answer.

CR: was the appellant in one of these rulings by the Court
of Appeal for Ontario in October 2003 which made it clear
that section 5(2) of the CDSA was never struck down as
unconstitutional by that court.

JCT: Sure, I never said it had been struck down. But I said
it had been invalidated by the Crown's failure to reprint a
new Criminal Code statute to reflect the Parker Court's
invalidation either by 1) exempting "marijuana" from S.4(1)
or nullifying it from Schedule II of prohibited substances.
Now I'm also complaining about the Criminal Code not being
reprinted to reflect the Krieger Court's invalidation of the
section 7 cultivation offence in Feb 4 2003.

CR: 10. The Applicant filed a notice of appeal of that
decision with this court in early 2004 which was dismissed
as abandoned."

JCT: By one judge Binnie who threw out the whole ready to go
application because one document had been submitted late.
3000 epileptics died at Binnie's hands and he's going to
hear about it from me when I respond to this paragraph!
Payback. I want to get as many judges on the record
supporting this tripe as possible.

CR: 11. The Court of Appeal for Ontario rejected the
Applicant's argument "again" on Feb 23 2007 when it stated:
"Mr. Turmel's enthusiastic arguments face an insurmountable
hurdle. This court has already rejected these types of
arguments.. and concluded that these offences remained in
full force and effect."

JCT: The insurmountable hurdle of not having five judges on
the panel to overrule the three who said "that these
offences remained in full force and effect." Insurmountable
only because Chief Justice McMurtry stacked the deck. Which
is why I get to go north.

CR: 12. In summary, the declaration in Parker did not have
the effect of repealing Canada's marihuana laws

JCT: Sure, the declaration in Parker did have the effect of
invalidating the section 4 possession offence and the
failure to reflect that invalidation in Section 4 forced the
invalidation to be effected by deleting "marijuana" from the
list of prohibited substances for all sections that referred
to the list. Had they exempted marijuana in Section 4(1)
saying it's an offence "to possess anything on Schedule II
except marijuana," sure, it would still be on the list for
all other offences. But when they didn't reflect the
invalidation with an exemption in the section, it could only
be invalidated in the schedule. For all offences including
"possession for the purpose."
Sure, Alan Young got the Hitzig Court of Appeal to order
Canada's judges to ignore S.2(2) of Parliament's
Interpretation Act to deem a statute that's been invalidated
to be "repealed" and to treat it as only "absent," or
"uncertain" as the new description of invalid in the Crown's
vocabulary, but courts can't resurrect penal laws, only
Parliament can. What an error causing untold tens of
thousands of bogus prosecutions.
I don't know what name to call the crime of the Court of
Appeal's Order to Canada's lower courts to continue
prosecutions under these bogus "resurrected" laws but I know
they've got the blood of all those epileptics and others who
could have benefited from the herb but for having been
fooled into believing Courts can bring penal sanctions that
have been struck down back to life.

CR: nor did it delete marijuana from Schedule II of the
CDSA. The Applicant continues to operate under a
"fundamental misconception" that during the period
uncertainty

JCT: While the Crown continues to operate under a
"fundamental misconception" that during the period of
invalidity was a period of uncertainty. It was pretty
certain to anyone who uses the word the court itself uses.
Crown doesn't like the word the court used to strike down
the possession offence as of no force and effect. They don't
like to use the word "invalid" that the Parker Court and
I've used in this documentation. They want to use the word
"uncertain" instead of "invalid" because it explains the
courts ideas so much more precisely than by using the
court's own words.
(Sorry about repetition, I'm practicing volleys for the
final edition.)

CR: legislation prohibiting possession for the purpose of
trafficking marijuana was somehow "repealed."

JCT: No, Section 7 cultivation and S.4 possession
prohibitions have been struck down and to be deemed repealed
while Section 5(2) and others have been invalidated by
implication and government failure to print a new code. As
Justice Earle-Renton once said: you can't "possess for the
purpose" if possession is legal. Well, you can't "possess
for the purpose" if cultivation and possession are legal.

CR: Given that the law with respect to possession marijuana
for the purpose of trafficking has never been deemed to be
of no force and effect,

JCT: Before...

CR: the Applicant's conviction was proper,

JCT: We're not on this appeal to talk about whether my
conviction was proper but whether the prosecution should be
prohibited on the grounds the Krieger Court invalidated the
cultivation offence.

CR: especially given that the Applicant himself admitted at
trial that "if the law's still alive, I'm in big trouble."

JCT: Back to the conviction that should be raised in Leave
Application #32013. But of course, if the law is not alive,
then I'm not in big trouble. And it the law is alive, then I
am in big trouble because I'm going to have to kill it all
over again. But admitting it's going to be big trouble is no
admission the conviction was proper. Besides, how can it be
proper when the judge skipped from the pre-plea pre-trial
motion decision right to the conviction in the same ruling?
I'm sure it's unheard of, such special treatment for my case
they can't win in any other way.

CR: B. The Ontario Court of Appeal has the Ultimate
Discretion As To When It Will or Will Not Convene A 5 Judge
Panel To Reconsider One Of Its Earlier Decisions.

JCT: So because the Chief Justice has the ultimate
discretion, he can stack the deck by not providing enough
judges once alerted it's going to try to challenge a
previous decision which was so important it was even
inscribed in the Martin's Criminal Code of Canada. And when
it was was not dealt with by the Supreme Court of Canada due
to Binnie's abortion for one signed order being submitted
late, it remains unresolved and never had a chance.

CR: 13. The respondent acknowledges that when "good reason"
exists to "doubt the correctness" of an earlier decision
from the Court of Appeal, the usual practice is for the
Chief Justice of that court to convene a five-judge panel of
the court to reconsider the earlier decision.

JCT: And I never got the chance to provide any "good reason
to doubt the correctness of the earlier decision" because
the court said it didn't have enough judges to overrule the
earlier decision.

CR: 14. The Applicant provided no basis whatsoever to the
Court of Appeal for Ontario for it to doubt the correctness
of its earlier decision in R. v. Turmel.

JCT: My appeal's purpose was to doubt the correctness of its
earlier decision in R. v. Turmel so impaneling insufficient
judges to check the correctness of its earlier decision is
no confirmation of its earlier correctness. Maybe this isn't
so clear to the legally-trained mind.

CR: 15. On June 12 2006, the Honorable Chief Justice
McMurtry of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, after
considering the positions of the parties, decided that the
appeals would be heard by a court composed of three judges
only. This notice was sent to the parties to the appeal by
way of a letter from the Senior Legal Officer of the Court
of Appeal.

JCT: Making sure there was nothing they could do for me.
Pre-determining my appeal with insufficient judges.

CR: 16. There is no basis to review the decision by Chief
Justice McMurtry not to convene a 5 judge panel.

JCT: I got not chance at redress and there's no basis to
review his decision to stack the deck?

CR: As the foregoing paragraphs demonstrate, the Applicant
was charged with an offence (possession for the purpose of
trafficking marijuana) that has never been "repealed" and
his appeal from conviction is therefore without merit.

JCT: The Crown keeps forgetting that this application is
seeking the remedy of prohibition, not acquittal. That's in
Leave Application #32013. App.#32012 is for the jury trial.
But this App.#32011 for prohibition because the law's dead.
Argument for my conviction shouldn't be here.

CR: C. This Application Raises No Issue of Public Importance

JCT: Har har har har. Both of my appeals were inscribed in
the Criminal Code that year, that's how important the Crown
thought they were. My Parker II appeal for the declaration
that the law died on Appellant Terry Parker Day 2001 and
resurrected on Cross-Appellant Hitzig Day 2003. And my
appeal for a declaration that all the marijuana laws died on
Terry Parker Day too. Both appeals generated by me with
issues now being raised in these appeals were published in
the Criminal Code of 2005 and the Government wanting to duck
final challenge to their new Criminal Code interpretations
by saying what the precedent they deem of enough importance
to enter into Canada's Criminal Code is of insufficient
national importance to be challenged one last time.

CR: 17. The law regarding the prohibition against possession
of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking is well settled.

JCT: I just pointed out it has not been though they'd like
it presumed to be correct.

CR: For approximately three years, the Applicant evaded a
trial on the merits by attempting to obtain injunctions
against prosecution in the Superior Court of Justice,

JCT: Yeah, like rich guys, I hit them with a flurry of legal
attacks before I had to word on a defence.

CR: disguised in the form of prohibition or certiorari.

JCT: "disguised." Har har har har. I guess it's disguised
because I'm not a lawyer.

CR: When those applications were dismissed, the Applicant
appealed to the Court of Appeal (twice) further delaying and
fragmenting his trial.

JCT: Har har har nyuk nyuk nyuk nyuk. The trial hadn't even
started so it couldn't be fragmented. That's why Justice
Belanger insisted on rushing to start it just before the
appeals against his jurisdiction could be heard. The appeals
were filed way before the trial had even started, it just
took an extra year for them to find some French speaking
judges.

CR: 18. The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed his
argument that he was not charged with an offence know to law
twice.

JCT: The first time, yes, the second time, no. The second 3-
judge panel said it was moot and they didn't have the
jurisdiction to overrule the previous 3-judge panel.

CR: He was told in 2003 that his position regarding the
"repealing" of the prohibition of cannabis marijuana from
schedule II of the CDSA was fundamentally misguided.

JCT: And I needed 5 judges to correct that ruling. And the
Crown's position regarding the Hitzig resurrection of the
repealed prohibition is fundamentally misguided.

CR: Despite the clear direction of the court, the Applicant
again brought the issue before the same court in 2007 and
was told that the previous decision was binding.

JCT: Right. Because I had not been given the 5-judge panel
necessary to overrule the previous 3-judge panel that was
not binding my present 3-judge panel.

CR: The decision by the Chief Justice of that Court not to
convene a panel of 5 judges was appropriate given that the
Applicant had no basis to the Court of Appeal to doubt the
correctness of its previous decision.

JCT: The Court refused to permit me to argue any basis
because they didn't have the numbers.

CR: This application is an attempt to again relitigate an
area of law that is well settled.

JCT: I wanted 5 judges to relitigate an area of the law that
is not well settled! Har har har har. It was never allowed
to be finally adjudicated but say that's "well settled."
Lawyer's will take any kind of win. No pride.

CR: As the Court of Appeal for Ontario recently noted, the
Applicant "faces an insurmountable hurdle"

JCT: That it takes 5 judges to overrule 3 judges and they
only gave me 3 judges knowing I was trying to overrule the
first three. Stacking the deck with the Crown now trying to
collect the crookedly won pot with no more argument.

CR: and this application is not deserving of this Court's
attention.

PART IV - SUBMISSIONS CONCERNING COSTS

19. The respondent does not seek costs.

PART V - ORDER REQUESTED

20. The respondent requests that the application for leave
to appeal be dismissed.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Dated at Toronto this 23rd day of May 2007.
Brian G. Puddington
Counsel for the Respondent
Attorney General of Canada.

JCT: Keep in mind, these are the basis for my official
response minus the laughter.

You have to admit, it's quite a shock to realize how corrupt
and sleazy one's own government arguments. Imagine having to
fight off Her Majesty the Crook. But with arguments as
crooked as these, she should be ashamed to call what her
courts deliver "justice."


--
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