JCT: You'll remember Real Martin was with me and Pierre Drouin in our
POLCOA
appeals to the Supreme Court and after being rejected, he started back
at
the bottom to defend against his charge.

He served and filed a Notice of Constitutional Issue that the lack of
doctors made the exemption process illusory and the prohibhition
invalid
but Superior Court Justice Louise Gauthier ruled that the 7-days
notice had
missed the 15-day notice and she would not let it be argued. Then
convicted
him for growing during two years the possession prohibition was dead.

So he's filing his Notice of Appeal today:

Court File No._______

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
BETWEEN:
REAL MARTIN
Appellant
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Place of trial: Cochrane

Name of Court: Superior Court of Justice

Case File No: 13723/04

Name of Judge: Louise Gauthier

Offence of which convicted: S.7(1) CDSA

Plea at trial: Not guilty

Sentence imposed: 12 months served in the community

Date of conviction: September 15 2008

Date of imposition of sentence: November 13 2008

I, the above named appellant, hereby give notice that I desire to
appeal in person to the Court of Appeal on a question of law alone
against my conviction.

If a new trial is ordered, trial by jury is requested.

THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL are that:

1) Justice Denis Nadeau erred in not quashing on May 25 2005 the
charge as no longer known to law after S.7(1) had been invalidated by
the Krieger decision at the time of the arrest because:

a) the Oct 2003 Hitzig decision could not resurrect the prohibition
once struck down by R. v. Parker in 2001 which only Parliament can
do,
POLCOA (Parliament Only Legislates, Courts Only Abrogate),

b) or if it is held that the Hitzig Court did resurrect the old
prohibition, the Jan 10 2008 ruling by the Federal Court of Appeal in
Sfetkopoulos et al v. Canada found that the re-enactment on Dec 3
2003
of the unconstitutional conditions which had been struck down in
Hitzig had once again rendered the exemption process
unconstitutional.

2) Justice Gauthier erred in not granting that the unavailability of
doctors who participate in the exemption process makes that process
unconstitutionally illusory and the marijuana prohibitions not
valid.

THE RELIEF SOUGHT is an Order

a) quashing the charge on the grounds the prohibition in s.7(1)
remains unknown to law since the Krieger decision or since the re-
enactment of the unconstitutional limits;

b) overturning the conviction on the grounds the appellant's rights
were violated by the improbability of finding a doctor to
participate.

Appellant asks to dispense with the transcript on this question of
pure law.

Dated at Coppell Ontario on Dec. 12 2008
For the Appellant:
Real Martin
R.R.#1 Box 20
Coppell ON P0L 1N0

JCT: Grounds 1(b) is Alan Young's "gimme" by the Health Department who
re-
enacted the sections that had been declared unconstitutionally
limiting and
which was found to be unconstitutional again by the Sfetkopoulos case
at
the Federal Court of Appeal now going into the Supreme Court.

So we argue POLCOA that the law remains dead since the Krieger
invalidation
without any Hitzig resurrection to affect it,
and we argue Sfetkopoulos if they say the law turned off for two
months b
before being turned off again by Health Canada's unconstitutional re-
enactment.

Of course, always expecting anything by Alan Young to be a booby-trap,
I
only introduce it as an added element to the overall invalidation
that
remains in force despite the Hitzig court saying they uninvalidated
it,
Parliament's job.

James Turner's filing a POLCOA appeal against the refusal to prohibit
his
prosecution and Mr. Bollers is having his POLCOA prohibition being
heard in
Oshawa soon.