JCT: Chief Justice McLachlin and Justices Charron and
Rothstein denied all five of our applications for leave to
appeal. Information on the steps can be found at:

http://cases-dossiers.scc-csc.gc.ca/information/cms/docket_e.asp?32009
http://cases-dossiers.scc-csc.gc.ca/information/cms/docket_e.asp?32010
http://cases-dossiers.scc-csc.gc.ca/information/cms/docket_e.asp?32011
http://cases-dossiers.scc-csc.gc.ca/information/cms/docket_e.asp?32012
http://cases-dossiers.scc-csc.gc.ca/information/cms/docket_e.asp?32013

From each page, you can then click to a case summary:

32009 Pierre Drouin v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)
(Criminal) (By Leave)
http://cases-dossiers.scc-csc.gc.ca/information/cms/case-summary_e.asp?32009

SCC: Criminal law - Narcotic control - Whether section 7(1)
of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c.
19, is still an offence known to law?

The Applicant was charged with production of marihuana
contrary to section 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, possession for the purpose
of trafficking marihuana contrary to section 5(2) of the
CDSA and five counts of possessing a prohibited weapon
contrary to the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46.
After being committed to stand trial, but before his trial
in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Applicant
brought an application for an order prohibiting prosecution
of the count under section 7(1) as it was his position that
it was no longer an offence known to law because Parliament
had not re-enacted the offence since a judge of the Alberta
Queen's Bench struck it down in R. v. Krieger (2000), 225
D.L.R. (4th) 164.

JCT: Wrong, it was struck since the Alberta Court of Appeal
supported Justice Acton striking it down.

SCC: Justice Nadeau dismissed his application, concluding
that there was a suspension of the order of the declaration
of invalidity

JCT: I guess the Supreme Court justices don't agree that the
O'Leary stay granted to the Appellant pending appeal is
gone.

SCC: and that declaration was since remedied by the
enactment of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations
(MMARs). The Court of Appeal agreed.

JCT: If the MMARs worked and the O'Leary stay pending appeal
survived the appeal. We'll see.

SCC: 32010 Real Martin v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)
(Criminal) (By Leave)
//cases-dossiers.scc-csc.gc.ca/information/cms/case-summary_e.asp?32010

JCT: Same for Real.

SCC: 32011 John C. Turmel v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)
(Criminal) (By Leave)
//cases-dossiers.scc-csc.gc.ca/information/cms/case-summary_e.asp?32011

Criminal law - Narcotic control Criminal procedure -
Whether section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances
Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, is still an offence known to law?
Whether the Court of Appeal has the discretion as to when it
will convene a five-judge panel to reconsider one of its
earlier decisions?

The Applicant was charged with possession of marihuana for
the purpose of trafficking contrary to section 5(2) of the
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19. He
was later convicted by a judge sitting alone in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice.

JCT: Notice that they put the conviction that happened last
earlier than other elements of the story.

SCC: The Applicant admitted the facts but advanced the
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 question remains whether section
5(2) is an offence known to law. The question also remains
whether the Court of Appeal has the discretion as to when it
will convene a five-judge panel to reconsider one of its
earlier decisions.

JCT: The questions remain but were not answered.

http://cases-dossiers.scc-csc.gc.ca/information/cms/case-summary_e.asp?32012
SCC: 32012 John C. Turmel v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)
(Criminal) (By Leave)

Criminal procedure - Whether the Crown has the discretion to
decide on what charges to proceed? - Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, s. 5(2).

The Applicant was charged with possession of marihuana for
the purpose of trafficking contrary to section 5(2) of the
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19. He
was later convicted by a judge sitting alone in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice. The Applicant admitted the facts
but advanced the proposition that he was not charged with an
offence known to law.

JCT: Remember how the Crown kept confusing the application
for prohibition with the application for a jury trial? Well,
the Supreme Court accepted that error too. The novel
proposition has nothing to do with this appeal. Only being
charged with less than 3Kg when I had more is involved.

SCC: His appeal from conviction to the Court of Appeal for
Ontario was dismissed.

JCT: This part was involved in appeal 32013 and again has
nothing to do with a false fact on the face of the
indictment.

SCC: The question remains whether the Crown has the
discretion to decide on what charges to proceed.

JCT: Yes, the question of whether the Crown can lie on the
indictment remains to be answered.

SCC: 32013 John C. Turmel v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)
(Criminal) (By Leave)

//cases-dossiers.scc-csc.gc.ca/information/cms/case_summary_e.asp?32013

Criminal law - Narcotic control - Criminal procedure -
Whether section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances
Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, is still an offence known to law?

JCT: No, that was in the appeal for prohibition of
prosecution #32011 with Pierre Drouin and Real Martin.

SCC: Whether the trial judge was correct in refusing to
allow the Applicant to raise certain defences after he was
convicted?

JCT: No, whether he was correct in convicting me before I
had the chance to present a defence.

SCC: The Applicant was charged with possession of marihuana
for the purpose of trafficking contrary to section 5(2) of
the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19.
He was later convicted by a judge sitting alone in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The Applicant admitted
the facts but advanced the 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 question remains whether the Crown has the discretion to
decide on what charges to proceed.

JCT: No, the discretion issue was raised in appeal 32012,
not this 32013 here. Seems even the Supreme Court can't keep
the issues apart.

SCC: The question also remains whether the trial judge was
correct in refusing to allow the Applicant to raise certain
defences after he was convicted.

JCT: No, whether it was right to convict me after skipping
the stages of defence where I could present those argument.
Even the Supreme Court has to misrepresent what happened!
Anyway, though the rulings were simply issued by the court
registrar, it seems Canadian Press noticed the end of their
2003 story and did a story which got picked up pretty well
all around the country. I googled for news and found:

(CPimages/Jonathan Hayward)
CP: John Turmel is arrested on Parliament Hill in 2003, for
allegedly having three kilograms of marijuana.

JCT: This was the picture of me at the door of the House of
Commons being taken away by the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police officers with my seven 1-pound bags of marijuana.

The Brandon Sun (MB)
Thursday, July 12th, 2007
High Court denies leave to appeal by man convicted of
marijuana trafficking
Canadian Press

OTTAWA (CP) - John Turmel has lost another one. The Supreme
Court of Canada has dismissed an application for leave to
appeal a marijuana trafficking conviction by the Guinness
record holder for most elections contested and lost.

As is its usual practice, the high court did not give
reasons for its decision in the case of Turmel, who's lost
60 elections running on a pro-marijuana platform.

JCT: Sad to think that they link me to my Number Two
political platform. I really didn't run in 60 elections to
abolish marijuana prohibition. I ran in 65 elections to
abolish interest rate debt slavery.

CP: In 2003, Turmel dared the Crown to prosecute him for
carrying three kilograms of marijuana to Parliament Hill and
lighting a joint in protest of what he said were unjust and
illegal pot-smoking arrests.

JCT: Illegal arrests because the law was dead. And just 5
months later, the Hitzig Court of Appeal admitted the law
was dead before fixing it and bringing it back to life.

CP: He failed in his bid to overturn the trafficking
conviction but he was denied by the Ontario Court of Appeal,
which held that protection under the law only extended as
far as possession.

JCT: Because cultivation is gone too via Krieger, I went
back saying that last time I lost when only possession was
invalid, though not yet known by the judiciary, only me, and
now I'm back with possession and cultivation both being
invalidated and not reflected in the Criminal Code.

CP: Turmel had asked for an absolute discharge to prevent a
criminal record that might interfere with international
travel and his ambition to one day run for "prime minister
of the planet."

JCT: On the promise to get cops out of gambling, sex, drugs
and rock & roll and interest-free charge cards at the Bank
of Canada that can be paid off with time at work. Call that
heaven.

turmel - Google News
CJOB, Canada - 12 Jul 2007
Canada East, Canada - 12 Jul 2007
940 News, Canada - 12 Jul 2007
570 News, Canada - 12 Jul 2007
The Chronicle Journal, Canada - 12 Jul 2007
CJAD, Canada - 12 Jul 2007
Winnipeg Free Press, Canada - 12 Jul 2007
Canoe.ca, Canada - 12 Jul 2007
The Chronicle West End Edition, Canada - 12 Jul 2007
Westmount Examiner, Canada - 12 Jul 2007
West Island Chronicle, Canada - 12 Jul 2007
Brandon Sun, Canada - 12 Jul 2007

JCT: Of course, there were a lot more important issues.
Should the Crown have erased the convictions of Canadians
prosecuted while the law was invalid instead of covering it
up? The Supreme Court were told about and have just now
helped the cover up of the Parker bogus convictions Scandal.

Is a statute that has been struck down repealed pursuant to
Section 2(2) of the Interpretation Act or merely absent
until fixed pursuant to the Hitzig decision? A big one.

They were told about the continued prosecutions despite the
Krieger ruling out of their court and did nothing,
essentially helping cover up the Krieger scandal. All these
errors and injustices were brought to the attention of three
of Canada's top nine judges and they didn't see anything
important enough in the biggest judicial snafus in Canadian
history to let the issues be aired.

How about when the Crown keeps arguing that when a federal
penal statute is struck down as unconstitutional in one
province, it has to be be struck down in every other
province? No answer there.

Luckily, I do have one last kick the can. Section 73 of the
Supreme Court of Canada Rules say that a motion can still be
filed for "reconsideration" for "exceedingly rare
circumstances in the case that warrant consideration by the
Court... within 30 days after the judgment on the
application for leave to appeal."

So what "exceedingly rare circumstances may warrant
consideration by the Court... within 30 days after the
judgment on the application for leave to appeal?"

How about what happened on the very next day. Yes, on
Thursday July 12 2007, the Supreme Court dismissed my
applications based on the fact Parliament must pass new
legislation to make the prohibitions valid again, and on
Friday July 13 2007, from the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation:

>>Judge rules Canada's pot possession laws unconstitutional
Last Updated: Friday, July 13, 2007 | 8:46 PM ET CBC News

CBC: A Toronto judge has ruled that Canada's pot possession
laws are unconstitutional after a man argued the country's
medicinal marijuana regulations are flawed. Lawyer Brian
McAllister says the potential ramifications of a ruling that
Canada's pot possession laws are unconstitutional are
'pretty big.' (CBC)

JCT: Remember, McAllister was first to convince Windsor
Justice Phillips and Justice Rogin that Section 2(2) of the
Interpretation Act applied when the Terry Parker Day took
effect so that the marijuana prohibition on possession had
been repealed. Though his reason for why the Parker
invalidation had taken effect, that it had to be enacted in
law, not in policy, was eventually thrown out, the fact it
didn't work to safety Parker on time won, it did establish
that a statute that has been struck down is to be deemed
repealed. And McAllister was first to bring to our attention
that the Supreme Court of Canada had noted that the Section
7 cultivation prohibition had been struck down in Krieger!
And then he never used the ace he had discovered. I sure
have.

CBC: The 29-year-old Toronto resident had been charged with
possession of about 3.5 grams or roughly $45 dollars worth
of marijuana. The man has no medical issues and doesn't want
a medical exemption to smoke marijuana. In 2001, Health
Canada implemented the Marijuana Medical Access Regulations,
which allow access to marijuana to people who are suffering
from grave and debilitating illnesses.
In court, the man argued that the federal government only
made it policy to provide marijuana to those who need it,
but never made it an actual law. Because of that, he argued,
all possession laws, whether medicinal or not, should be
quashed. The judge agreed and dismissed the charges.
"The government told the public not to worry about access to
marijuana," said Judge Howard Borenstein. "They have a
policy but not law. In my view that is unconstitutional."

JCT: They didn't enact the exemption in legislation?
Actually, they didn't make it a policy to provide marijuana,
such policy needing to be enacted into law, they made it a
policy to exempt from the already legislated prohibition.
Had the MMARs worked to successfully provide medical access,
would a challenge to the prohibition stand up? "Everything's
working fine but the prohibition should be invalidated
because what works fine wasn't enacted in the right place?"
No, the issue fatal to the legislated prohibition is whether
it deprives some Canadians of needed access, not whether it
was legislated right. It's the Windsor technicality all
over again.

CBC: Defence lawyer Brian McAllister, who represented the
man, said the ramifications of the ruling have potential to
be "pretty big." "Obviously, there's thousands of people
that get charged with this offence every year," he said.

JCT: So if the law's still dead affects the thousands every
year is pretty big, then when we told the Supreme Court our
challenges on the the law still being dead were important,
it sure proves our point.

CBC: McAllister said Ontario residents charged with
possessing marijuana now have a new defence. "That's
probably why the government will likely appeal the
decision," he said.

JCT: A new, weaker, defence than that the law is still dead
because the Hitzig Court couldn't bring it back to life
after it was struck down.

CBC: Borenstein has given prosecutors two weeks before he
makes his ruling official.

JCT: Good, then I'll have two weeks to use it in our Motions
for Reconsideration of our appeals that the cultivation and
possession prohibitions are still invalidated as the
"exceedingly rare circumstance in the case that warrants
consideration by the Court... within 30 days after the
judgment on the application for leave to appeal."

CBC: Prosecutors told CBC News they want a speedy appeal to
overturn the decision."

JCT: If the issue of Parliamentary legislation is of
national importance when raised at the bottom, it should
have been of national importance when raised at the top.

CBC: For the time being, nothing changes," Toronto police
spokesman Mark Pugash said about how the force deals with
marijuana possession. "We have to wait and see what happens
with the process through the courts."

JCT: Are they going to keep busting now that a new judge has
told them it's back to their same old problem. They're going
to have to call on Alan Young to get the Court to re-
validate the prohibition against us once again like his
Hitzig case brought the prohibition back to life on the same
day Parker found out it had been dead since Terry Parker
Day.

Now I've got to send a fax to Judge Clement in Terry
Parker's Section 24 claim for the pot seized by Canada Post.
He's supposed to hand down his decision on the 26th and now
that a new judge is going to challenge the Hitzig
resurrection, it should certainly bolster Terry's case.

Remember, even if the reason for why the law remains
unconstitutional is bogus, the effect is explained for when
the reason isn't bogus, like "it didn't work on time and it
became repealed." Much good can come out of it but just like
the JP argument which eventually lost though taking credit
for the many withdrawn charges won by Terry Parker's "it
didn't work" argument, this could be just another straw
horse started to take the credit for correcting the Krieger
scandal. That's a lot of bogus convictions they're going to
have to admit to right after the Supreme Court helped cover
the Parker Scandal up! Har har har har.

What incredible luck. After the Supreme Court's failure to
see the national importance of the bogus convictions issue,
bogus convictions since 2003 is starting to make national
news on the very next day! And I'll get the judge's decision
in time to shove it in their faces in my motion for
reconsideration. Har har har har nyuk nyuk nyuk nyuk nyuk.


--
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