JCT: Last July 12 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada
dismissed my five applications for leave to appeal all the
bad marijuana judgments from the past that would not admit
that the marijuana laws remained repealed for the past 4
years despite the Crown continuing to improperly bust
hundreds of thousands of Canadians. Then the very next day,
on July 13, Judge Borenstein in R.v.Long ruled the law has
been dead for the last 4 years! Pretty rare circumstance
which warrants reconsideration.

So,
Court File: 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

NOTICE OF MOTION TO A JUDGE OR THE REGISTRAR
JOHN C. TURMEL, APPLICANT
(Pursuant to S.73 of the Supreme Court Rules)

TAKE NOTICE that John Turmel hereby applies to a judge or
the Registrar pursuant to Section 73 of the Rules for an
Order granting leave to appeal in applications (32009),
(32010), (32011) (32012) (32013).

And for any Order abridging the time for service, filing or
hearing of the motion, or amending any defect as to form or
content, or for any Order the said judge may deem just.

AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that the said motion will be made on
the following grounds of national importance and the recent
R. v. Long decision of July 13 2007.
Dated at Brantford on Aug. 29 2007.
For the Applicant:
John C. Turmel, B. Eng.
8-37 Colborne E. Brantford, N3T 2G3
Tel/Fax: 519-753-0645 Email: turmel@...

ORIGINAL TO REGISTRAR:
COPIES TO: The Respondent
PUBLIC PROSECUTION BRIAN J. SAUNDERS
SERVICE OF CANADA
201 County Court Blvd. 284 Wellington St.
Brampton ON Ottawa ON K1A 0H8
Per: Brian G. Puddington per: Francois Lacasse
Tel/fax: 905-454-2424/2168 Tel/fax: 613-957-4770/941-7865
Court File: 32011
Appeal Court No: 44587

NOTICE TO THE RESPONDENT TO THE MOTION: A respondent to the
motion may serve and file a response to this motion within
10 days after service of the motion. If no response is filed
within that time, the motion will be submitted for
consideration to a judge.
If the motion is served and filed with the supporting
documents of the application for leave to appeal, then the
Respondent may serve and file the response to the motion
together with the response to the application for leave

AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN C. TURMEL
JOHN C. TURMEL, APPLICANT
(Pursuant to S.73 of the Supreme Court Rules)

I, John C. Turmel, make oath and say as follows.
On July 12 2007, my 5 apps dismissed. over 4 years.
On July 13 2007, Judge Borenstein ruled in Toronto that the
law's been unconstitutional almost 4 years since Dec 2003.
Noting the Crown dropped the last 4000 charges left from the
2 years in Dec 2003 while the statute was invalid, I note
this 4-year period of invalidity is an even bigger screw-up
than the last one.
These recent bogus prosecutions were raised within my five
related appeals. The outbreak below indicates the national
importance of this issue at the top.
Sworn before at Brantford on Aug 29 2007
John C. Turmel, B. Eng.
8-37 Colborne E. Brantford, N3T 2G3
Tel/Fax: 519-753-0645 Email: turmel@...

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

STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT FOR RECONSIDERATION
JOHN C. TURMEL, APPLICANT
(Pursuant to S.73 of the Supreme Court Rules)

1. These representations relate to the applications for
leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from the Ontario Court
of Appeal by Pierre Drouin (32009), Real Martin (32010), and
John Turmel (32011) (32012) (32013). Applicants had sought
Orders prohibiting prosecution on the grounds the
prohibitions on marijuana possession and cultivation in
Section 4 and Section 7 of the CDSA were no longer known to
law since their repeal by the Parker Court of Appeal for
Ontario on Aug. 1 2001 and by the Krieger Court of Appeal on
Feb 2 2003. Applicants were charged after invalidation of
both prohibitions and raised all the following issues below.
2. On July 31 2000 in R. v. Parker, on a Crown appeal
from the Dec 10 1997 decision of Ontario Provincial Judge
Sheppard staying cultivation and possession of marijuana
charges against Terrance Parker and reading in exemptions
for people with medical need, Ontario Court of Appeal
Justices Rosenberg, Catzman and Charron instead Ordered "the
marijuana prohibition in s.4 of the CDSA to be invalid" but
suspended its ruling while granting Parker a constitutional
exemption for 1 year against criminal prosecution. The court
further wrote they would have invalidated the cultivation
prohibition had the Crown also appealed Parker's cultivation
exemption. Though Parker was not deprived of his rights,
2400 to 4600 Canadian epileptics who were not exempted with
him suffered needless deprivation of life in that year and
every year since then.
3. On Jul 30 2001, one day before the expiry of the
suspension of the Parker declaration of invalidity, Health
Canada issued the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations
(MMAR). On Aug 1 2001, when Parker's exemption expired
without the MMAR having provided the necessary medical
access, it was declared that the MMAR had not complied with
the Parker Court's ruling on March 15 2002 by Ontario
Superior Court Justices Pitt in Parker II, on Jan 9 2003 by
Lederman J. in Parker II, Rogin J. on May 16 2003 in R. v.
J.P, and the Ontario Court of Appeal on Oct 7 2003 in J.P.
On Sep 15 2001, 6 weeks too late, Parker received a 6-month
Section 56, not MMAR, exemption from the Ministry of Health.
4. On Mar 15 2002, upon a motion by Terry Parker for an
Order a) declaring that possession prohibition in S.4(1) of
the CDSA was no longer known to law after the invalidity
Order in R. v. Parker had taken effect on Aug. 1 2001, or b)
extending the exemption granted by the Court of Appeal
(Criminal), Ontario Superior Court Justice Romain Pitt
granted the short notice ex parte second remedy Order
sought: "extending the constitutional exemption granted to
the applicant by the Ontario Court of Appeal until the
Government has complied with the court's ruling." The Crown
did not appeal Pitt J.'s ruling that the MMAR had failed to
comply on time to the Criminal Court of Appeal nor did the
Crown reprint the Criminal Code to reflect the failure.
5. On Jan 09 2003, Ontario Superior Court Justice,
Lederman J., declared that the MMAR exemption system had
failed to comply with the Parker court's ruling by not
ensuring Parker a supply of marijuana.
6. On May 16 2003, Ontario Superior Court Justice Rogin
dismissed the Crown appeal of the Windsor J.P. decision that
ruled that after the marijuana prohibition was deemed
repealed on Terry Parker Day Aug. 1 2001, a new statute had
to be enacted by Parliament. This is the third Ontario
Superior Court Justice to have ruled that the MMAR had not
functioned to save the CDSA prohibition from repeal.
7. Two days earlier, on May 14 2003, the day before the
Minister of Justice was to introduce legislation to newly
re-criminalize prohibition of marijuana with double the
penalties, mis-named "de-criminalization," John The
Engineer, Guinness record candidate for the House of Commons
two dozen times, candidate for mayor of Ottawa and candidate
in all Ottawa provincial elections and byelections, faxed
the media that he was going to appear at the doors of the
House of Commons possessing 7 pounds of marijuana for the
purpose of trafficking one pound to the Prime Minister, one
pound to the Justice Minister, one pound for the Supreme
Court, Superior Court, RCMP, Ottawa police to face a life
sentence to demonstrate that the prohibition on possession
was no longer valid in Canada and still inoperable without a
workable medical exemption. Charged under s.5(2) with
possession for the purpose of trafficking of "under 3
kilograms" for his possession of "over 3 kilograms."
8. On May 15 2003, The Globe & Mail headline "Ottawa
holds back marijuana bill" had picture caption: Pro-
marijuana advocate John Turmel was arrested yesterday on
Parliament Hill for allegedly possessing more than three
kilograms of the drug. Justice Minister Martin Cauchon said
Ottawa will not table legislation to change Canada's
marijuana laws for at least another week." It should have
been headlined "John The Engineer holds back marijuana bill"
with life-sentence gamble and the Chretien Government nor
any other ever passed any such prohibitions ever again.
9. On Oct 06 2003, in another application to quash
marijuana charges as unknown to law in R. v. Kurtiss Lee
Masse, Judge Chen agreed with Justices Phillips and Rogin in
J.P. that:
"S.52(1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of
Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions
of the constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency,
of no force and effect... S.2(2) of the Interpretation Act
reads: "For the purposes of this Act, an enactment that has
expired, lapsed, or otherwise ceased to have effect is
deemed to have been repealed... the infringement on s. 7
Charter rights identified in Parker has not been cured. The
enactment of the Marijuana Exemption (Food and Drugs Act)
Regulations on July 8, 2003 may or may not address the
concerns raised in Hitzig but came too late to have any
effect on the declaration of invalidity in Parker. July 31,
2001 had, by that time, already come and gone, and the
legislation had already been rendered invalid. Once invalid,
it became a nullity and could not be resuscitated; it could
only be re-enacted. [67] It follows therefore, that there is
no offence known to law at this time for simple possession
of marihuana. The application is allowed.
10. The next day, on Oct 7, the Ontario Court of Appeal
dismissed the ruling in J.P. that the CDSA prohibition on
possession of marijuana was of of no force and effect since
Terry Parker Day because the Marijuana Medical Access
Regulations (MMAR) had been wrongly implemented but still
had to quash J.P.'s charges because by the Aug. 1 2001
deadline: "the MMAR did not create a constitutionally
acceptable medical exemption... as of that date, the offence
of possession of marijuana in s.4 of the CDSA was of no
force and effect. The respondent could not be prosecuted."
11. But the Court of Appeal also disagreed with
Justices Phillips, Rogin and Chen that Section 2(2) of the
Interpretation Act meant that a statute declared of no force
and effect is to be deemed "repealed" just because it said
it's to be deemed "repealed." The court ordered lower courts
to ignore the Interpretation Act and treat such formerly
repealed statutes as only "absent" until fixed by the
courts. The Supreme Court has allowed the possibly biggest
subversion of Parliamentary authority to date to stand.
12. The Court then ruled in Hitzig that by striking
down the flaws in the MMAR two years after it failed to save
the CDSA prohibitions on Parker Day, the newly working MMAR
could return the absent prohibition to life on Hitzig Day.
And every judge in the country forgot that Parliament
creates laws, courts strike them down, not the other way
around and has signed off on tens of thousands of more bogus
convictions, the Hitzig Resurrection Scandal. Without Alan
Young's Hitzig case, Parker's invalidation would still
stand. The Supreme Court has allowed the Hitzig Resurrection
to stand.
13. The Court of Appeal dismissed my appeal against
Aitken J.'s refusal to prohibit prosecution of my Parliament
Hill Bust because "marijuana" had to have been stricken from
Schedule II for all related sections if they didn't print a
new code detailing the exemption in the section. The court
ruled there was no need to consider the word marijuana
deleted from the Schedule II when the the courts would
remember which written statutes were valid and which were
not. Both the Hitzig (Parker II) and R. v. Turmel appeals
started by me were cited in the Criminal Code as latest
precedent. For the Crown to argue that the issues are not of
national importance when after they referred to them in the
Criminal Code is the height of hypocrisy. The Supreme Court
of Canada has now permitted such a non-strict interpretation
of criminal statutes despite its obvious national
importance. Turmel case were permitted to have national
effect via the Criminal Code but not permitted to have final
appeal on the merits. These national precedent-setting
rulings never got Supreme Court scrutiny they deserved.
14. On Dec 08 2003, upon expiry of the 60-day period to
seek leave to appeal, the Crown stayed the last 4,000
improper S.4(1) possession charges laid between the the Aug.
1 2001 Parker Day invalidation and Oct 7 2003 Hitzig Day
resurrection despite Justice Kenkel in R. v. Peddle [2003]
ruling that charges under a null statute must be withdrawn
or quashed, not stayed and kept hanging over people's heads
for an extra 6 months. People felt relieved getting out from
under a illegitimate cloud when they had right to be angry
for being charged under a dead law.
15. The Parker 4000 Screw-up was just the tip of the
iceberg. After dropping the last 4000 pending invalid
charges, the Crown refused to expunge the records of the
perhaps 100,000 improperly convicted in the two years since
Terry Parker Day 2001 and simply hushed it up. The Parker
Hush-Up Scandal. The Ontario Court of Appeal refused to
correct the record of these victims and now the Supreme
Court of Canada has refused to compel the Crown to correct
the record thus seeming to abet the cover-up of the second
biggest scandal in Canadian judicial history.
16. If the Supreme Court fails to correct the records
all at once, http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/mpforms.htm
offers the alternative that victims of the Parker Scandal
use forms available there to apply for free to their Court
of Appeal for an extension of time to appeal their bogus
conviction registered during the 2-year period of invalidity
because they didn't know when they were convicted that the
Court of Appeal would, two years after the fact, declare
that the possession offence had been invalidated since
before they were charged. And if the Court of Appeal refuses
to overturn the bogus conviction, then to apply to the
Supreme Court of Canada asking you to correct their bogus
conviction. This is the court's last chance take in hand the
Parker Scandal cover-up en masse rather than one at a time.
So the Parker Scandal has been brought to the attention of
the Supreme Court of Canada and the Supreme Court let those
bogus convictions stand.





















17. On Dec. 11 2000 in R. v. Krieger, Alberta Justice
Acton followed the Parker ruling by declaring the
prohibition on cultivation of marijuana in s.7(1) of the
CDSA, and by implication possession in s.4(1), of no force
and effect and suspended her ruling for 1 year. On Dec 4
2002, the Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's
appeal against the Order of invalidation by Acton J. The
Crown did not obtain a stay pending leave to appeal to the
Supreme Court within 60 days and the Krieger invalidation
took effect on Feb 4 2003. After obtaining an extension of
time to apply for leave, the Crown Memorandum to the Supreme
Court of Canada by S. David Frankel admits "[57] As matters
now stand S.7(1) has been declared of no force and effect by
the highest court in Alberta."
18. On Jun 11 2003, Applicant Pierre Drouin was charged
under S.7(1) with production of marihuana and S.5(2) with
possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking. On
June 18, Real Martin was charged with the same offences.
19. On Dec 23 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada denied
the Crown's application for leave to appeal the Alberta
Court of Appeal decision in R. v. Krieger:
Krieger Note: http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegsc2.htm
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/bul/2003/html/03-12-23.bul.html
"Trial judge finding that prohibition on production of
cannabis marihuana infringing accused's s. 7 Charter rights
and not saved by s. 1..."
"(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"
"December 4, 2002 Court of Appeal of Alberta (Wittman,
Costigan and LoVecchio JJ.A.) appeal with respect to s. 7(1)
dismissed."
20. If the S.4(1) possession prohibition, once
invalidated on Aug. 1 2001 by the Parker Court could only be
re-enacted, not resuscitated, so too, the S.7(1) cultivation
prohibition, once invalidated on Feb 2 2003 by the Krieger
Court, could only be re-enacted, not resuscitated. And
neither S.4(1) nor S.7(1) prohibitions on possession and
cultivation have ever been re-enacted since their repeal.
21. The Crown has continued persecuting victims on the
basis that there is a stay of judgment emanating from one of
the functus officio courts below. The Alberta Court of
Appeal makes no mention in its March 18 2003 Bench
Memorandum of needing to lift a stay once their court became
functus officio. As well, there is no way to apply to the
Court to lift anything once the appeal file had been closed.
And the Supreme Court's own online information says the
section 7 prohibition is struck down as inconsistent with
the charter. That's all. There is no mention that the Order
remains suspended. Are Section 7 victims entrapped by the
Supreme Court writing the section 7 offence was struck down
when it never took effect? All these illicit cultivation
busts since 2003 have been brought to the attention of the
Supreme Court of Canada which has again done nothing. The
invalidation was ignored, the Criminal Code not changed, the
Ministry of Justice laughing at the rulings of the courts
that are not reflected in the Criminal Code.
22. And 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. And
the Supreme Court should correct its erroneous information.
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. Either way, it should be corrected.
23. 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. The Supreme Court let them
get away with ignoring their Krieger ruling.
24. Challenges to the trial judge's jurisdiction were
dismissed by the Court of Appeal as moot becauser the judge
just forged ahead without waiting to find out if he had
jurisdiction to proceed. Higher-court challenges to the
lower court's jurisdiction cannot be mooted by rushing ahead
before a higher decision is rendered.
25. That the Supreme Court of Canada has allowed the
face of the indictment to contain the false allegation that
the accused possessed less than 3Kg (not due a trial) when
the accused possessed 3.3Kg (due a trial) was another
aberration bringing the administration of justice into
disrepute.
26. That a conviction was allowed to stand when there
was no time afforded for a defence to be presented between
decision on the pre-plea motion to quash and the decision to
convict to present the defences of no time for defence to be
raised such as constitutional right to use for preventative
reasons; the defence of necessity, and the intent to allow
inspection, not to traffic, is another.
27. Finally, in Toronto on the very next day after the
Supreme Court closed its eyes to the hundreds of thousands
of victims of legal and judicial incompetence raised in our
applications at the top, on July 13 2007, Justice Borenstein
made national headlines in R. v. Long ruling that the
prohibition on possession has been unconstitutional for the
past four years thus exposing the bogus convictions that
the Supreme Court had refused to deal with the day before.
28. The law was once valid, in 2001 Parker made it
invalid, in 2003 Hitzig made it valid again, in 2007 Long
made it invalid. The judiciary is coming off looking like
the Keystone Kourts. This demonstrates conclusively why
Parliament and not the courts are in charge with creating
new laws, what a mess the courts have done and are not
trying to cover up. So, with the approbation of the Supreme
Court of Canada, the Crown will keep handing out bogus
convictions with the blessing of the Supreme Court. Everyone
convicted under these invalid statutes from now on can blame
the Supreme Court. It will be painted that the Court has
abetted the Crown's crimes.
29. This was the first time the issues raised about the
recent court rulings on marijuana herein have been dismissed
on the merits. It this application doesn't get in to have
the whole stinking kettle of fish raised and dealt with on
YourTube before the Supreme Court of Canada, it's going to
be raised before the not-YourTube Court of public opinion.
30. Someday, there will be a Parliamentary inquiry into
the Parker Scandal's 100,000 covered-up bogus convictions,
into the Krieger Scandal's 200,000 covered-up bogus
convictions, into the Court's usurping Parliament's
prerogative to enact law, all brought to the attention of
the Supreme Court who did nothing to help in the cover-up.
This is the court's last chance to fix the biggest series of
judicial bunglings in Canadian history or bring the
administration of justice into disrepute trying to cover
them up. Besides, it has already exploded in the court's
faces the next day when the Judge Borenstein announced his
discovery of the many victims of Keystone Kourt bungling
too.
31. Except these Keystone Kourts aren't very funny.
Epilepsy Canada statistics show that 10 Canadians die every
day from epileptic seizures, 4 who already knew they were
epileptic and could have had a preventative anti-seizure
joint in their possession at the time like Terry Parker uses
to allay his seizures.
32. As I explained to the Hitzig Court if they didn't
admit the Parker decision had taken effect on Terry Parker
Day Aug. 1 2001 and allow every epileptic to possess right
away, they'd be responsible for those preventable deaths.
That they'd trick Canada's epileptics into believe they had
brought the prohibition against their anti-seizure medicine
back to life when they had no power to do so is only a
greater indication of the complete statistical incompetence
of courts made up of only low-tech lawyer.
33. As I can assure Justices Doherty, Goudge and
Simmons that 4 years at 1500 extra deaths is 6,000 dead
Canadians who'd be alive right now but for their judicial
actions. Add in the two years of invalidity before that and
we're looking at almost 10,000 dead epileptics due to
judicial error. Now their blood is also on your hands. I
already pointed out how Justice Binnie responsible for an
extra two years worth of victims, (3000) by throwing out
these fully-ready life-and-death challenges on the grounds
of a document being submitted late. God have mercy on your
souls at judgment day. I'd bet your victims won't.
34. After the Supreme Court dismissed his application to
prohibit his charges, Pierre Drouin, who has since proved
medical need by qualifying for a Health Canada exemption to
use 5 grams of marijuana per day, must now undergo trial
under Section 7 cultivation offence that the Supreme Court
site reads has been invalid for four years. Applicants
Pierre Drouin and Real Martin are the first Canadians to
suffer prosecutions for the bogus offence despite coming to
the direct attention of the Supreme Court of Canada. They
won't be the last.
35. I am now registered in the Outremont federal
byelection for Sep 17 2007 and will make sure to point out
how the Supreme Court of Canada has backed off from dealing
with these kilo-victim issues as a result of judicial
actions. Do you think this is some kind of theoretical
exercise in law? 10,000 epileptics died because of
shenanigans by lawyers and judges. Not counting a percentage
of the millions of others who could been helped by this
cheap non-toxic multi-valued medicinal herb. The truth can't
be covered up, it's too big. And it's coming out. Better
lance the boil now top down rather than suffer the pains
bottom up.

Dated at Brantford on Aug. 29 2007.
For the Applicant:
John C. Turmel, B. Eng.
8-37 Colborne E. Brantford, N3T 2G3
Tel/Fax: 519-753-0645 Email: turmel@...
For the Respondent
Robert Frater: robert.frater@...
2311-284 Wellington St. Ottawa, K1A 0H8
Tel: 613-957-4763, Fax: 613-941-7865

JCT: If these issues don't get in to Supreme Court Tube, I
I'll be reading them in at YouTube.
One advantage to always keeping my arguments short. No foot-
high stack of materials for me! Most cases read in probably
under 10 minutes!


--
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