Crown on Non-Inmate Turner's Inmate appeal

JCT: James got the Crown's Response to his Application for Leave
to Appeal the precedent of the Crown dragging non-inmate Turner
through inmate court. In preparing his reply, this is my first
parsing. Any jokes or suggestions are gladly welcome.
Crown is Maureen J. McGuire. MJM:
Count how many times she omits the word "inmate"

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
(ON APPEAL FROM THE ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL)

BETWEEN:
James Earl Turner
Applicant
(Appellant)
and

Her Majesty The Queen
Respondent
(Respondent)

RESPONSE TO APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

Table of Contents

1. Respondent's Memoradum 1
2. Information sworn Oct 10 2006 15
3. Reasons for decision, dated December 1 2008 20
4. Endorsement of the Court of Appeal Aug 18 2009 31
5. R. v. Peck (1998) 126 CCC(3d) 359 (Man.C.A.) 32
6. R. v. Sopko [1994] M.J. No. 162 (C.A.) 40
7. R. v. Turmel (2003) 177 CCC(3d) 533 (Ont.C.A.) 44
8. R. v. Turmel (2007 ONCA 133 47


MEMORANDUM OF HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, RESPONDENT
(Rule 27)

MJM: PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On Sep 28 2006, James Turner is charged and awaiting trial on
charges of Production of marihuana ( s.7(2) of the CDSA)
Possession of Marihuana for the purpose of trafficking (s.5(3)
CDSA) and Possession of Proceeds of Crime (s.355(b) of the
Criminal Code.

2. Prior to his preliminary inquiry on these charges, Mr. Turner
brought an application in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
for an order prohibiting prosecution of all charges relating to
marijuana under the CDSA, a stay of any marijuana charges as an
abuse of process, an order citing the Minister of Justice for
contempt of court for allowing the prosecution to take place; and
an order allowing him to tape record the proceedings.

3. In essence, Mr. Turner's application was an attempt to
relitigate R. v. Turmel (2003) 177 CCC(3d) 533 (Ont.C.A.). Mr.
Turner's materials filed on his application were an adaptation of
materials prepared by Mr. Turmel. Mr. Turner, like Mr. Turmel,
argued that the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v.
Parker (2000) 146 CCC(3d) 193 had the effect of removing
marijuana from the Schedule II of the CDSA for all purposes.

JCT: And now Turner has the added jurisprudence of Sfetkopoulos
and Beren I didn't have.

MJM: The Superior Court and the Ontario Court of Appeal in Turmel
rejected that argument. It should be noted that Mr. Turmel raised
the same issue before the Ontario Court of Appeal a few years
later.

JCT: When I had added the Krieger Ace to my case.

MJM: The Court of Appeal confirmed its 2003 judgment in R. v.
Turmel 2007 ONCA 133;

JCT: Actually, they said that my lower court judge rushing
through with my trial before they could grant my appeal
prohibiting my trial made their decision "moot" and nothing was
decided on the merit.

MJM: this Court denied Mr. Turmel's application for leave to
appeal and did not allow his request to file his motion for
reconsideration of his leave to appeal application.

JCT: Which means nothing since the Supreme Court refused to deal
with the prohibition issue that the Court of Appeal refused to
deal with as moot.

MJM: Mr. Turner made no new argument in his application beyond
that which had been rejected by the Court of Appeal in Turmel in
2003 and 2007.

JCT: And Turmel not being a lawyer, everyone's got the right to
remind the judges that the Interpretation Act says the law is
dead no matter what the Hitzig Court says and see if any catch
on. It only takes one who sees despite the hundreds who have been
blinded.

MJM: 4. Mr. Turner's application was summarily dismissed on Nov
26 2008 with written reasons released December 1 2008. The
application judge characterized Mr. Turner's application as a
"frivolous and vexatious" interruption of the trial process.

JCT: And Justice Tulloch spent 6 months presenting his reasons
for such a "frivolous and vexatious" argument?

MJM: 5. Mr. Turner filed a notice of appeal from the dismissal of
the prohibition application on January 20 2009, 20 days beyond
the time for appeal and without seeking any extension of time to
appeal.

JCT: You have to wonder how it was accepted for filing by the
Registry if it really was 20 days beyond the time for appeal and
without seeking any extension of time to appeal. Har har har har.
Har har har har. Nyuk nyuk nyuk nyuk nyuk.

MJM: 6. Mr. Turner then failed to take steps to perfect his
appeal.

JCT: That's completely false totally ignoring all the
correspondence with the Registry showing he had done everything
except for obtaining the better transcripts from Ottawa. Har har
har.

MJM: 7. As this was an appeal from a decision of a Superior Court
judge not sitting as a trial judge, and as no viva voce evidence
was heard on the application in the court below, the Ontario
Criminal Appeal Rules required the appellant to perfect his
appeal within 60 days of the filing of his notice of appeal. He
did not do so.

JCT: Crown Maureen J. McGuire doesn't even know that an appellant
has 90 days after transcripts have been filed though James
mentioned it several times. Amazing isn't it? As if she's in her
own little reality where inconvenient facts are just ignored.

MJM: As a result, an Appeal Book was prepared by the respondent
and filed May 29 2009. The appeal was then listed for hearing and
the appellant was notified.

JCT: Sure, the appeal book was filed but not the transcripts,
factums, affidavits of service and certificates of perfection as
required by the rules. And the appeal was then listed in the
Inmate Appeal Court where such documentation is not necessary.
Her own little reality.

MJM: 8. On June 4 2009, Mr. Turner by email requested the Court
of Appeal adjourn his appeal pending the filing of transcripts
and his factum.

JCT: He requested they adjourn his inmate appeal...

MJM: The transcript he wished to file was the transcript of
submissions in the court below

JCT: The transcript the Registrar was expecting him to file...

MJM: despite the fact that the Criminal Appeal Rules specify that
such transcripts are not to be filed except with consent of the
respondent or by order of the court.

JCT: In inmate appeal court maybe but in regular Court of Appeal
appeals, the Registrar had told Jim he needed them and he was
getting them.

MJM: Mr. Turner did not seek any order for the inclusion of
submissions,

JCT: He was following the order of the registrar...

MJM: and his notice of appeal raised no issue for which the
transcript of submissions would be relevant.

JCT: Who makes her the judge of what's relevant?

MJM: Mr. Turner's request for an adjournment of his appeal was
considered by MacPherson J.A. and was refused on June 9 2009.

JCT: Right. His request for an adjournment of his inmate appeal
because he wasn't an inmate was refused by MacPherson J.A.

MJM: He was notified by the court that he could raise the issue
again before the full panel at the hearing date on June 16 2009.

JCT: Before the inmate appeal panel, he could raise the issue
again. What issue? Notice she talks about the issue but never
says what the issue is? What was the issue MacPherson dealt with?
The fact there was a non-inmate before his inmate appeal court
and he didn't fix it.

MJM: 9. On June 16 2009, the sittings of the Ontario Court of
Appeal were canceled. All appeals scheduled to be heard that day
were subsequently rescheduled. Mr. Turner's appeal was
rescheduled for hearing on Aug 18 and Mr. Turner was given notice
of the new date. When Mr. Turner complained by email to the Court
of Appeal, he was again advised he could request an adjournment
from the panel at the hearing on Aug 18 but that he should be
prepared to argue his appeal should the adjournment be refused.

JCT: Notice how she just can't bring herself to ever say "Inmate
Court of Appeal" or Turner's "Inmate appeal" or "inmate appeal
panel" or "inmate appeal hearing" or "inmate appeal." It's as if
never calling it anything but the "issue" makes the "inmate
appeal" issue go away in her own little reality.

MJM: 10. On Aug 18 2009, Mr. Turner did not attend the hearing of
his appeal. The appeal was therefore dismissed as abandoned.

JCT: When the guards couldn't find Inmate Turner for his inmate
appeal. Har har har har.

MJM: PART II - QUESTIONS IN ISSUE

11. The only question raised by the applicant in his leave to
appeal application relates to the propriety of the dismissal of
his appeal.

JCT: No, to the propriety of an inmate appeal for a non-inmate.

MJM: The respondent submits the Court of Appeal properly
dismissed this frivolous and vexatious appeal brought by an
appellant who had demonstrated no serious intention of
proceeding.

JCT: Lawying her face off to completely ignore the real issue. He
had done everything required by the Registrar and her allegations
of no serious intention of proceeding is libellous. Lucky she's a
Crown. Bet it impresses the Supremes.

MJM: 12. The respondent further submits that the applicant has
demonstrated no issue of national or public importance warranting
this Court's attention.

JCT: When all the rules of the court are broken to switch an non-
inmate appellant into the inmate appellant group, this is a
miscarriage of justice, no matter how the Crown has tried to duck
the real issue of an non-inmate tried inmate appeal court.

MJM: PART III - ARGUMENT

13. James Turner is making every effort to avoid prosecution on
his outstanding drug-related charges.

JCT: James Turner has been derelict in no way in complying with
the requirements of the Registrar in perfecting his appeal.

MJM: He delayed his preliminary inquiry by bringing a frivolous
and vexatious application for prohibition in the Superior Court
of Justice.

JCT: Which Justice Tulloch did not treat as frivolous and
vexatious showing that he's sharper than Justice P. Lalonde,
enough to give it more thought and treat the argument with the
respect it merits despite his lack of jurisdiction.

MJM: When that was summarily dismissed, he filed a notice of
appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario and then did nothing to
advance that appeal.

JCT: She's lawying again. He did everything requested by the
Registry. Maureen McGuire's own little reality.

MJM: He disregarded the Court's rules for perfection times.

JCT: In reality, no he did not fail to comply with the
Registrar's rules for perfection times.

MJM: He fought against the listing of his appeal for hearing,
relying on his own nonfeasance as a basis for his objection.

JCT: relying on his non-inmate status as the basis for his
objection.

MJM: In the last resort, Mr. Turner refused to attend the hearing
of his appeal

JCT: Before Inmate Appeal Court when he wasn't an inmate and the
presiding judge knew it.

MJM: 14. Mr. Turner's appeal was devoid of any merit on the face.

JCT: Too bad it wasn't argued and dismissed for that reason.

MJM: The only grounds of appeal indicated in his notice of appeal
were those rejected by the Court in the 2003 Turmel appeal. Mr.
Turner had no chance of success.

JCT: Maybe not below but above where we never got the 5 judges we
needed to overrule Hitzig and J.P.

MJM: 15. The public interest requires as speedy a finalization of
a criminal prosecution as may reasonably be obtained.11
11. R. v. Sopko and R. v. Peck

JCT: And the Registrar waiting for the transcripts was not a
reasonable delay? Take it up with the Registrar.

MJM: When frivolous appeals are permitted to languish in the
system due to obstructionist appellants, the public interest
suffers.

JCT: Obstructionist Registar, not Appellant, who required the
transcripts be redone by the Ottawa Court reporter.

MJM: In this case, an obstructionist appellant

JCT: Calling him names twice is twice as strong.

MJM: having filed a frivolous and vexatious appeal,

JCT: Treated with respect by brighter benches...

MJM: took no steps to advance that appeal

JCT: Same lie again, her own little reality.

MJM: and refused to appear before the Court when directed.

JCT: The wrong court.

MJM: The public interest in this case demanded the appeal be
summarily dismissed as abandoned.

JCT: I thought it was ruled abandoned because the guards can't
fine inmate Turner, not because the public interest was raised.

MJM: 16. The applicant knew his request for an adjournment had
been denied.

JCT: Adjournment of the inmate appeal for the non-inmate.

MJM: He knew his appeal was listed for hearing on Aug 18 2009.

JCT: He knew it was in Inmate Court and he wasn't an inmate.

MJM: He knew the only option available to him to renew his
adjournment request was to do so before the panel of the Court
Court Appeal on Aug 18 2009.

JCT: THe Inmate Court of Appeal...

MJM: He made the deliberate decision not to attend his appeal
hearing date.

JCT: His inmate appeal hearing date when he wasn't an inmate..

MJM: There was therefore nothing improper about the Court's
decision to dismiss the appeal.

JCT: There is something improper about an Inmate Court's decision
to dismiss a non-inmate appeal.

MJM: No issue of national or public importance

17. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada is granted to
only a very limited number of cases.

JCT: Right, I'm batting zero for 31 on issues of abolishing
interest rates, abolishing media exclusion of candidates,
abolishing gambling and marijuana prohibitions. And I'm proud of
every time I put the boots to the opposition even if I had to
watch the win go to the guys I just beat up.

MJM: To be deserving of the attention of the country's highest
court, an appeal must raise a serious issue of national
importance or public importance.

JCT: I can't think of anything more important than a precedent
letting the Crown drag non-inmates though inmate courts.

MJM: The Supreme Court of Canada is not a court of error, and
even where a court of appeal has reached a wrong result, that of
itself is not sufficient cause for the granting of leave.

JCT: Don't I know it. All those 31 wrong judges not using the
power to end all those problems and 31 times it wasn't sufficient
cause for the granting of leave. Even cases of life and death
like death-gamble and prohibition of epilepsy anti-seizure herb.

MJM: 18. The applicant has shown no issue of national importance
in this case.

JCT: If a precedent letting the Crown drag non-inmates though
inmate courts is not important.

MJM: He has demonstrated no issue of unsettled law.

JCT: No, he's demonstrated violates of settled laws.

MJM: or divergence in application of the law,

JCT: The first non-inmate dealt with in inmate court is quite a
divergent precedent.

MJM: nor has he demonstrated there is any novel legal issue of
significance.

JCT: The completely novel precedent for dragging non-inmates
though inmate courts is of great significance.

MJM: 19. The ruling sought to be appealed by the Applicant is the
summary dismissal of an appeal the applicant chose to abandon.

JCT: No, the ruling sought to be appealed is the summary
dismissal of a non-inmate appeal by an inmate court.

MJM: Furthermore, the applicant's appeal would inevitably have
been dismissed even if determined after a full hearing on the
merits,

JCT: She predicts the future in her own little reality.

MJM: as the only issue raised was one rejected by the same court
in 2003 and 2007.

JCT: Not the same as the prohibition in 2003 which did not have
Krieger to go with Parker and now not the same as in 2007 which
did not have Sfetkopoulos and Beren. After all, they're the ones
who say the MMAR failed and we're only pointing out that means
the CDSA was off while the MMAR was off too. So everyone's POLCOA
arguments have been enhanced by new jurisprudence.

MJM: As a result, the issue of the summary dismissal of the
appeal has no practical relevance to even this particular case,
let alone any broader national interest.

JCT: A precedent letting the Crown drag non-inmates though inmate
courts is of great practical relevance to the broader national
interest.

MJM: PART IV - SUBMISSIONS CONCERNING COSTS

20. The respondent makes no submission regarding costs.

PART V - ORDER SOUGHT

21. The respondent respectfully requests the application for
leave to appeal be dismissed without costs.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Dated this 8th day of October 2009
Maureen J. McGuire.
Crown Counsel
Public Prosecution Service of Canada
Ontario Regional Office
3400-130 King St. W. Toronto Ontario

JCT: Never once mentioning that the issue was over the precedent
of dealing with non-inmates in inmate court, she goes on attack
lawying her face off every chance she got.