JCT: Because the Crown couldn't find Real Martin in time to
serve him their Response, they needed an extension of time.
It also game me a chance to get in any last licks. I hope
this helps:

File Number: 32010
Appeal Court No: C44684
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
(ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO)
BETWEEN:
Real Martin
Applicant for leave
Appellant in appeal
and
Her Majesty The Queen
Respondent for leave
Respondent in appeal

APPLICANT'S REPLY
REAL MARTIN, APPLICANT
(Pursuant to Section 28)
OVERVIEW

1. Though the Applicant professes medical need without
qualifying for an exemption like Drouin, this issue is not
whether the prohibition is bad for the sick, it's about
whether it's been invalid for the past four years for all.
Applicant adopts the evidence and arguments of Pierre Drouin
in #32009 that we were charged with an offence no longer
known to law because the S.7 cultivation offence was
invalidated by the Alberta Court of Appeal in R. v. Krieger
but never reflected in the Criminal Code of Canada.

2. When the Crown did not amend the Criminal Code of
Canada to reflect the invalidation of the S.4 possession
offence by the Ontario Court of Appeal on Terry Parker Day
Aug. 1 2001, the police, the bar, the bench ended up
prosecuting 500 invalid offences over two more years. The
last remaining 4000 possession charges had to be dropped and
the 100,000 bogus convictions registered since the
possession had been struck down had to be covered up. The
Parker 4000 Screw-up and the Parker 100,000 Scandal.

3. When the Crown again did not amend the Criminal Code
to reflect the invalidation of the S.7 cultivation offence
by the Alberta Court of Appeal on Grant Krieger Day Feb 4
2003 after the 60-day period to apply for leave to appeal
and get a stay of judgment pursuant to Section 65.1(1) of
the Supreme Court of Canada Act had expired, Applicant and
200,000 more Canadians have suffered bogus prosecutions at
the hands of the police, the bar, the bench obeisant to the
written word while the cultivation and possession offences
were both invalid over the past 4 years and had never been
re-enacted by Parliament. The Krieger 200,000 Scandal.

BACKGROUND:

4. The Supreme Court of Canada Bulletin of Proceedings at
lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/bul/2003/html/03-12-23.bul.html
details the December 23 2003 Krieger decision:
<< 29569 HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. GRANT WAYNE KRIEGER
(Crim) (Alta.)
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Major and Fish JJ.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

December 11 2000
Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Acton J.)
Section 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act,
inasmuch as it relates to cannabis marihuana, declared
inconsistent with the Charter; declaration suspended for one
year; Respondent granted an exemption from the application
of s. 7(1); charge stayed

November 28 2001
Court of Appeal of Alberta (O'Leary J.A.)
Period of judicial stay extended until further order of the
Court of Appeal.

December 4 2002
Court of Appeal OF Alberta
(Wittman, Costigan and Lo Vecchio JJ.A.)
Appeal with respect to s. 7(1) dismissed.>>

March 25 2003
Supreme Court of Canada (Arbour J.)
Motion to extend time allowed

May 20 2003
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed.

Dec 23 2003
The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the
Court of Appeal of Alberta (Calgary), Numbers 01-00011-A and
01-00288-0A, dated March 18 2003, is dismissed. >>

5. After the Crown lost its appeal, it failed to file
an application for leave to appeal within 60 days so a
judicial stay pursuant to Section 65.1(1) of the the Supreme
Court of Canada Act could not be obtained. The Acton Order
of Invalidation of the S.7 cultivation offence had to take
effect on Feb 4 2003 Grant Krieger Day as surely as the
Parker Order of invalidation of the S.4 possession offence
took effect on Aug 1 2001 Terry Parker Day.

6. An extension of time for the Crown to apply for
leave to appeal was granted but the Crown never obtained a
S.65 stay out of the Supreme Court because, as S. David
Frankel explains in the Crown's May 16 2003 Memorandum:
<<[57 As matters how stand, S.7(1) has been declared of no
force and effect by the highest court in Alberta. An
application to vacate the order of O'Leary J.A. suspending
the declaration could be brought at any time. If the
suspension order were vacated, then the cultivation of
marihuana would not be an offence in Alberta.>>

7. The Crown did not amend the Criminal Code to reflect
the Krieger invalidation and sicced Canada's justice system
on 200,000 innocent Canadians for 4 more years because the
Final Order dismissing appeal isn't a "further order" of the
court needed to lift the Appellant's stay pending appeal!
Applicant Pierre Drouin has rebutted that proposition.

8. Applicant stresses that the Alberta Court of Appeal
makes no mention in its March 18 2003 Bench Memorandum of
needing to lift a stay once their court becomes functus
officio. And there is no way to apply to lift anything once
the appeal file had been closed.

9. The Court says clearly that Justice Acton demanded
nothing of the Government, she simply struck the section
7(1) cultivation offence as unconstitutional. And the Court
of Appeal finally dismissed the Crown's appeal against her
Order. No mention of any continuing stay of her judgment.
Was Applicant entrapped by the Alberta Court of Appeal
writing that the cultivation offence was struck down when it
never took effect because of some stay emanating out of the
Appeal Court after the dismissal of the matter?

10. The Supreme Court's own online information says the
section 7 prohibition is struck down as inconsistent with
the charter, that's all. Though there is mention of the
extension of the stay granted to Appellant by O'Leary, there
is no mention that the continues to suspend the order. It
only says the Section 7 cultivation offence was struck down
by the Alberta Court of Appeal with no mention of any
lingering interim stay thwarting the invalidation. Was
Applicant entrapped by the Supreme Court writing the section
7 offence was struck down when it never took effect? If
there really was an Order forever staying the Acton
invalidation, you'd have thought these courts should have
pointed it out rather than let everyone read that Section 7
offence is struck when it's not.

11. Either the Crown lawyers are idiots for thinking an
interim stay pending appeal out of a lower functus officio
court continues to stall their defeat years after they've
lost all their appeals or the Courts have been derelict in
not mentioning this unwritten effect in their judgments.
Though the Supreme Court says it's struck down, it really
isn't. Though the Alberta Court says it's invalid, it really
isn't, thus entrapping all those who read that the S.7
cultivation offence had been struck down.

12. Drouin makes the persuasive argument the Crown
lawyers are idiots. Criminal law demands a strict
interpretation of criminal statutes. Even if the Appellant
Crown's stay pending appeal does continue after the appeal
has been dismissed, the fact it wasn't mentioned by the
courts has misled and entrapped the accused into thinking
that what the Supreme Court had written down was true.

13. If what the Supreme Court printed wasn't true, then
the accused shouldn't be held accountable for what the
Supreme Court misrepresented as a non-illegal activity.
Either the Supreme Court was wrong in letting Canadians
believe what the Court wrote down or the Crown lawyers are
wrong for busting 4 years worth of people after the law's
repeal had actually taken effect. With a judiciary who
enforce the written word, Applicant is a victim of the
Crown's failure to republish the legislation to reflect the
Court's rulings.

14. Though the Crown dropped 4000 charges all across
Canada due to Parker, it still argues that when a federal
statute is struck down, it also needs to be struck down in
every other province too. So the Alberta Court of Appeal
ruling does not affect prosecutions in Ontario. This is
silly.

15. When the highest courts in Canada affirm a ruling
which strikes down an unconstitutional violation of a
Charter right and the courts then see that ruling ignored by
the Attorney General and that invalid statute in an
unamended Criminal Code enforced against an unsuspecting
populace, it has to be the duty of the courts to see that
their Orders are obeyed. The fact four known epileptics a
day die of seizures who should not have died had their anti-
seizure herb not been improperly prohibited makes this of
national importance.

16. When Justice Binnie caused this challenge to the
legislation by John Turmel and Terry Parker to be abandoned,
the delay permitted the deaths of an extra 3000 epileptics,
not even counting all the other deaths caused by people with
other illnesses who could have been saved. This is a
question of life and death where delay cause more deaths.
Yes, Justice Binnie is noted for writing how lawyers and
judges are rejects from math class and his own careless loss
of thousands of lives are an indication of the importance of
a full hearing of this issue.

17. The Ministry of the Attorney General is culpable of
mischief and genocide, after all, it did involve denying
dying patients who needed access to cannabis such access on
the basis of the enforcement of invalid statutes. The Crown
has no right to refuse to delete laws that have been struck
down by the courts and keep prosecuting under them. 4000
charges stayed, 100,000 illegitimate convictions registered
and never expunged, these are incredible deliberate crimes,
not incompetent errors, committed by the State and the
courts who blindly obey the printed word and not the rulings
of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Dated at Coppell Ontario on Jun 19 2007
____________________________
Applicant:
For the Applicant:
Real Martin
R.R.#1 Box 20 Coppell ON P0L 1N0
Tel: 705-362-7502 Fax: 519-753-0645


JCT: So that's it. The two biggest scandals in Canadian
judicial history want the attention of the Supreme Court.
The Crown win over Turmel they put into the Criminal Code
and never got a final hearing should. And thousands of
deaths resulting from judicial incompetence. Lots of good
reasons that the applications for leave to appeal be granted.

Now it's up to 3 judges to sign their names saying what the
Crown has done is all okay.


--
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