JCT: You'll remember that I have filed an application for
judicial review of the CRTC's refusal to get me a fair share
of time from Rogers Cable TV. I also filed a pre-election
motion for interim relief to make the CRTC get me equivalent
time or prevent the re-broadcast of the inequitable debate.
Federal Court Chief Justice Richard put off the decision on
stopping the unfair debate until after the election when it
would do no good.

I got the response to the motion to prevent further
injustice now that it's too late to do anything about it:

Court File No: 451-07

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

Ottawa, Ontario, November 5 2007

Present: Decary J.A.

BETWEEN:

John C. Turmel
Appellant

and
Canadian Radio-Television and
Telecommunications Commission
Respondent


ORDER

COURT: The applicant's motion seeking an order of mandamus
or declaratory relief against the Canadian Radio-Television
and Telecommunications Commission is dismissed.

First, neither an order of mandamus nor declaratory relief
can be awarded on an interlocutory basis and by way of
motion (see Brissett v. Canada) (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration) 2002, 228 F.T.R. 314, 2002 FCT 971 at para. 11;
Jaballah v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
2002, 222 F.T.R. 197, 2002 FCT 584 at para. 7.

JCT: So there are some wrongs the courts of justice cannot
handle and cannot be persuaded to handle. Actually, that's
not true. Though a novel opinion is not necessarily right, a
right opinion on a novel problem necessarily starts with a
minority of one.

Before the election, could the Federal Court have declared
that the existing distribution is not yet equitable and
mandated that the CRTC make it so? Sure it could have if the
issue was obvious. This one's pretty obvious. I was denied
equal time because I wore my party button. Is that good
enough reason for not complying with Section 8 of the
broadcast regulations? Does it say broadcasters must offer
equitable time "unless a candidate wears a party button?" Or
did Rogers add "or wear a party button" to their definition?
And who says we have to obey Rogers?

So, yes, any judge who heard the original motion had the
power to declare that it didn't look equitable so far and
push the CRTC to do its duty to ensure a democratic
election, an equitable election, in the debate forum
provided by the stations with our air-waves.

Not letting the plea for novel relief be heard before the
election allowed the court to troop out some generality
about declaratory relief in general for interim motions.

COURT: Second, the motion is moot given that the provincial
election of October 10th, 2007, in Ontario, has already
occurred.

JCT: So, they say it's too late to do anything about it
after waiting until it was too late to do anything about it.

COURT: No costs were sought.
Robert Decary, J.A.

JCT: So, now it's on to the issue of whether or not I was
treated equitably by being denied my equal share for wearing
my party button. Fuhrer Philp hasn't gotten away with it. He
can still be censured. The only real effect is Philp's
cheating me was not averted. But it can still be condemned
though with no way to redress the offence.

So court's can't provide justice when they aren't set up to
provide justice! Can't offer interim relief, they have to
wait until you're officially cheated with no way to redress
the injustice. Can't seek to prevent injustice in the
interim, must wait until it's completely done before seeking
redress that can no longer be had.

Justice in Wonderland, law is such a shameful profession.


--
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