JCT: Sorry I haven't posted these developments earlier.

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

October 10 2007

Mr. John C. Turmel
8-37 Colborne East
Brantford, N3T 2G3

Dear Mr. Turmel

Re: John C. Turmel v. Her Majesty The Queen
File Nos: 32011, 32012, and 32013

This will acknowledge receipt of your motion for
reconsideration of the decisions of the Supreme Court
delivered on July 12 2007 dismissing your applications for
leave to appeal to this Court in file numbers 32011, 32012,
and 32013.

I wish to inform you that Mr. Drouin and Mr. Martin must
file their own motion for reconsiderations in file numbers
32009 and 32010.

Once your motion for reconsideration is reviewed, you will
be advised of its acceptance or rejection for filing by the
Registrar in due course.

Please do not hesitate to contact an officer of the Registry
Branch at 613-996-8666 if you have any questions concerning
this matter.

Yours truly,
Suzanne Sarrazin
Registry officer

Cc: Mr. Brian Puddington, Mr. Francois Lacasse

Note to the respondent(s):
A respondent is not required to respond to a motion for
reconsideration until the motion has been accepted for
filing. [Rule 73(5)]

JCT: Then the decision of the court..... clerk:

Supreme Court of Canada
October 30 2007

Mr. John C. Turmel
8-37 Colborne East
Brantford, N3T 2G3

Dear Mr. Turmel

Re: John C. Turmel v. Her Majesty The Queen
File Nos: 32011

I hereby acknowledge receipt of your motion for
reconsideration of the decision of the Supreme Court of
Canada rendered July 12 207 dismissing your application for
leave to appeal to this Court.

I wish to advise you that Rule 73 of the Rules of the
Supreme Court of Canada states that there shall be no
reconsideration of an application for leave to appeal unless
there are exceedingly rare circumstances that warrant
consideration by the Court. It also specifies that a motion
for reconsideration must include an affidavit setting out
the exceedingly rare circumstances of the case that warrant
consideration by the Court and an explanation of why the
issue was not previously raised.

I have reviewed your motion for reconsideration and your
affidavits in support. Your arguments therein do not
constitute those "rarest of cases" in which the Court would
vary an order denying leave. I therefore regret to inform
you that, in my opinion, your motion does not reveal the
"exceedingly rare circumstances" warranting reconsideration
by this Court.

I am therefore returning your documents.
Yours truly,
Anne Roland
Registrar

Cc: Mr. Brian Puddington, Mr. Francois Lacasse

JCT: So the biggest judicial scandals in Canadian history being
exposed by the new Long case don't qualify as rare enough
circumstances in the opinion of the registrar.

So with 4000 errors already exposed as just the tip of the
quarter-million "bogus convictions" iceberg, this biggest case in
Canadian history gets covered up by the learned opinion of the
court clerk.

Canadian Justice in Wonderland. Har har har har.

Now the appeals from the errors of the Supreme Court of
Canada have to go on to the Internet Court and soon Parliament of
Public Opinion.

The crimes of the Canadian bench and bar should make great TV.




--
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