This is my constitutional question from my 2006 trial that the judge managed to
skip by doing the trial in reverse:

NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
Pursuant to S.8(2)(a) or of the
Constitutional Question Act

1) a declaration that the provisions of the CDSA prohibiting
marihuana are inconsistent with the Charter and of no force
and effect by virtue of the fundamental freedoms section of
the Constitution Act, 1982 pursuant to S.24(1) of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I, Schedule A
on the grounds that
a) the prohibition of cannabis hemp marijuana threatens my
right to life under s.7 by denying me the right to use
marijuana for preventative medical purposes and by denying
our society the right to use it for environmental survival
purposes.
b) the Applicant's rights under Section 7 of the Charter are
subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as
can he demonstrably justified in a free and democratic
society and the Applicant says that s.4(1), s.7(1) and
s.5(2) of the CDSA is not a reasonable limit and is not
demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.
Dated at Ottawa on March 10 2006
John C. Turmel, B. Eng

We can now add the failure of the MMAR and bring up the Sfetkopoulos and Beren
arguments here too. Re-argue them as the constitutional issues they were but no
more "Alan Young didn't ask" stuff. We also want the charges dropped because we
ask that the CDSA be declared invalid at the same time the MMAR is declared
invalid.

Of course, we can argue the illusory nature of the 1 in 60 doctors since we have
the evidence from the Terry Parker Crown's case.

So let's get Ken organized with the best constitutional challenge we can
remembering that James Turner may soon be doing his Quash and Constitutional
when his Supreme Court leave is refused. So it's going to be added to the
http://johnturmel.com/mpforms.htm kit for everyone to use. So let's be complete.

Are there any other reasons that the CDSA prohibition is constitutionally bad or
that the MMAR exemption is constitutionally bad? No more "unknown to law"
arguments here.

And if you suggest a constitutional flaw, suggest the least evidence it will
take to show it.