JCT: The Crown often confuses this appeal for prohibition of
prosecution (#32011) with appeal against conviction #32013.

File Number: #32011
                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
       (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO)
BETWEEN:
                        John C. Turmel

                                                    Applicant
                                          Appellant in appeal
                             and
                    Her Majesty The Queen
                                                   Respondent
                                         Respondent in appeal

                Response to Leave Application
                    Her Majesty The Queen
                    (Pursuant to Rule 27)

CR: PART I - RESPONDENT'S STATEMENT OF FACTS

Overview of the Respondent's Position

1. On May 14 2003, the Applicant was charged with possession
of marihuana for the purposes of trafficking pursuant to
section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
(CDSA). He was convicted by a judge sitting alone in the
Ontario Court of Justice on March 10 2006. The Applicant
admitted the facts but advanced the startling proposition
that he was not charged with an offence known to law. His
appeal from conviction to the Court of Appeal for Ontario
was dismissed. The Applicant continues to assert that he was
not charged with an offence known to law and that he should
have been afforded a five member panel before the Court of
Appeal to argue his case. This application ought to be
dismissed for the following reasons:
a) The application has no merit.
b) The issues raised are not of national or public
importance.

The Facts:

2. On May 14 2003, the Applicant faxed a letter to the
Department of Justice stating that he had marihuana that he
was going to drop off at various locations in Ottawa,
including Parliament Hill, the Prime Minister's office, the
Attorney General of Canada and to this Court. The Applicant
was arrested on Parliament Hill that same day while holding
a bag containing approximately 3.3 kilograms of marijuana
packaged in 7 bags.

JCT: One pound being dropped off at the House of Commons for
the Prime Minister's inspection, a pound for the Minister of
Justice, a pound for the Supreme Court of Canada, one for
Superior Court of Ontario, one for the R.C.M.P., one for the
Ottawa Police.

CR: 3. Between May 14 2003 (the day he was charged) and
March 10 2006 (the day he was convicted), the Applicant
brought a number of applications (in the form or prerogative
remedies) to prohibit the prosecution from continuing. He
was unsuccessful and convicted by Belanger J. on March 10
2006 on the charge of possession for the purpose of
trafficking marijuana contrary to section 5(2) of the CDSA.

JCT: Notice the dislocation "Applicant applications to
prohibit the prosecution from continuing unsuccessful (in
February 2007) and convicted by Belanger J. on March 10
2006. The Crown dropped the date of the end of the challenge
to his jurisdiction because the judge rushed ahead before
they could decide. Then the Court of Appeal ruled that a
ruling on the challenge to his jurisdiction was no longer
necessary because his rushing ahead meant he had could. Har
har har. No kidding. Ontario's highest Ontario court
Justices Labrosse, Sharpe and Blair all overruled by one
lowest Ontario Justice. Har har har har. So the Crown
dropped the Feb 2007 so they could switch the events in the
timeline to make it sound like Belanger ruled after my
challenge to his jurisdiction had been dismissed instead of
pointing out he ruled before my challenge to his
jurisdiction could be heard in 2007. Then the Court of
Appeal copped out.

CR: 4. The Applicant appealed the rulings dismissing his
applications for relief and his conviction.

JCT: Continuing the impression that the challenge to
jurisdiction in 2007 happened before the conviction decision
in 2006.

CR: His conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal for
Ontario because in its view the decisions in R. v. Turmel
(2003) 177 C.C.C. (3d) 533 (Ont.C.A.) and Hitzig v. Canada
(2003) 177 C.C.C. (3d) 449 (Ont.C.A.) were binding and that
possession for the purpose of trafficking marijuana was an
offence known to law.

JCT: That's why I needed 5 judges so they couldn't say they
were bound by the equal 3-judge panel. How often does anyone
ever ask for a 5-judge panel to overrule a 3-judge panel?
Almost never. So, when Justice Roy McMurtry refused to
provide sufficient judges to overrule the first court, I was
getting a stacked the deck.

CR: They further found that as the Applicant had admitted
the Crown's case at trial, he was properly convicted.

JCT: Sure Applicant admitted the facts, I always have. But I
didn't admit the Crown's case. Applicant happens to have
been deprived the chance to fight the Crown's case when
Judge Belanger went straight from pre-trial decision to
conviction skipping the constitutional challenge and the
defence parts of the trial. From the Section 601 pre-plea
motion to quash the charges to conviction in the same
decision, with no trial in between! I was rail-roaded and
retain the right to raise the issues. But not in this Appeal
for Prohibition, #32011. Skipping the defence part of the
trial is being argued in the Appeal from Conviction #32013.
Appeal for jury due more than 3 Kilograms is #32012. So I
was convicted but it's being argued it was "properly
convicted." Just no in this case file.

CR: PART II - QUESTIONS IN ISSUE

5. The Notice of Application appears to pose essentially two
questions:
i) When legislation is struck down, is Parliament required
to reprint the statute to effect the repeal?

JCT: Which the Crown did not do. So with no change to the
legislation, there was no change to the pattern of busting
resulting in the Parker 4000, the Parker Scandal's 100,00
bogus unerased convictions, and the Krieger 150,000 bogus
convictions since then.

CR: ii) Did the Chief Justice err in not providing the 5-
judge panel necessary to overrule the earlier 3-judge
decision in R. v. Turmel (2003) 177 C.C.C. (3d) 533
(Ont.C.A.)?

JCT: Here's the problem. They miss issue 3. We know we are
arguing the Appeal for Prohibition of prosecution issue here
but the Labrosse, Blair, Sharpe Court of Appeal did not
treat it separately from the conviction and the Crown
confuses the issues too. The court declared that whether the
law was dead or not didn't have to be decided since Judge
Belanger had just gone ahead without waiting to find out
what the Court of Appeal thought. So they copped out and
said Judge Belanger's ruling was binding on them.

CR: So the issue I'm raising here is whether the Krieger
invalidation took place. If it did, then my charge should be
prohibited not only because Section 4 and Section 7 were
invalid when I was busted (in the window of legality between
Turmel's Terry Parker Day Aug. 1 2001 when the possession
offence was found to have become invalid and Hitzig Day Oct
7 2003 when the possession offence was resurrected by Alan
Young fixing the MMAR.
But because I'm charged with "possession for evil purpose"
under Section 5(2) instead of the invalid "possession" under
Section 4(1), they say the invalidation of possession
prohibition does not apply to "possession for evil purpose"
too. My first Prohibition Court of Appeal found that the
Parker possession invalidation did not apply to me. I
appealed but Justice Binnie aborted my case because one
document was submitted late.
Now I'm back since the Krieger decision invalidated the
Section 7 cultivation (and by implication S.4 possession)
offence with a new grounds for prohibition. It was rejected
by MacLeod J. and this Court of Appeal then said that the
question of whether the law was alive after Krieger was no
longer relevant now that my judge had presumed the law was
alive and convicted me. With that cop out, I'm at the top
with the same appeals for prohibition against Section 5(2)
"for the purpose of trafficking" except that now I'm
pointing out possession for an evil purpose not only had no
possession offence to be based on but also had no
cultivation offence to be based on.
So Pierre Drouin's application ignored his S.5(2) purpose
charge in challenging only the Section cultivation charge, a
perfect Krieger "exempt by proof of sickness" applicant
demanding that the unjust prosecution be prohibited.
If he wins in establishing Krieger Day Feb 4 2003, then
there is proof Parker (Aug 1 2001) and Krieger had
invalidated both possession and cultivation at the time of
my arrest on May 14 2003 and before Alan Young could have
resurrected the prohibition again.

CR: 6. The Respondent submits not only that the foregoing
questions ought to be answered in the negative but that they
do not raise any issue of national importance that deserve
the attention of this Court especially since the medical use
of marihuana in Canada which is at the heart of the case law
upon which the Applicant relies to make his submission is
now settled law in Canada.

JCT: Medical use was for when I finally got to my
constitutional challenge after all avenues to prohibit or
quash the charges had been exhausted but Justice Belanger
skipped it and my defence to go straight from judgment on
pre-trial quash motion to conviction with no time for the
constitutional challenge and defence at trial in between.

CR: The Applicant has introduced no evidence that he has a
medical need for marihuana and his reliance on case law is
therefore misplaced.

JCT: Again, my desire to use marijuana for preventative
medical need was to be raised in the constitutional
challenge after my motion to quash had been decided. It was
skipped, not this prerogative motion to prohibit on the
grounds the prohibitions are no longer known to law. Since
I'm not raising any medical issues, my not having any
medical issues so far isn't a fatal deficiency. Har har har.
It's incredible how many times the Crown keeps repeating
that Turmel, the non-sick guy, is making a medical use case
when I'm not. I guess if they remain permanently confused,
the court can be expected to follow suit.

CR: PART III - ARGUMENT

A. Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking Marihuana has
Never Been Ruled Unconstitutional by Any Court in Canada.

7. The heart of the Applicant's argument lies in his
interpretation of a period of uncertainty in the province of
Ontario

JCT: The Parker Court of Appeal's Order declaring "the
marijuana prohibition in s.4 of the CDSA to be invalid" is
not hard to understand.  The Crown professes to be
"uncertain" about what declaring a statute "to be invalid"
means. Maybe they should be working for the Ministry of
Agriculture instead of the Ministry of Justice. Did they
drop all 4000 remaining possession charges across all Canada
because they were uncertain "only in Ontario?"
One major question that has to be decided is whether
statutes struck down by the Ontario Court of Appeal apply to
Federal Crowns all across Canada and all charges were
properly dropped or only to Federal Crown Attorneys in
Ontario and Federal Crown dropping charges across all Canada
as just being compassionate. Har har har har.

CR: with respect to the enforceability of the offence of
simple possession of marijuana under section 4(1) of the
CDSA. The period of uncertainty involved a very precise time
frame between July 31 2001 and October 7 2003.

JCT: The period of time when the law was "uncertain" is the
same period of time as when the law was "invalid." All the
Crown can do is call it something less than is true!

CR: The Applicant's argument is anchored on the Court of
Appeal for Ontario's decision in R. v. Parker (2000) 146
C.C.C. (3d) 193 (Ont.C.A.) where the Court found s.4(1) of
the CDSA to be of no force and effect to the extent that it
failed to address the issue of possession of marijuana by
those who required it for medicinal purposes to treat
medical conditions.

JCT: What's to be uncertain about that? But the Parker Court
didn't add the "to the extent..." part. It says Order
"declaring the prohibition in S.4(1) to be invalid." Nothing
else about any extent. This is just another attempt to put
words in the Parker Court's mouth.

CR: 8. The uncertainty

JCT: "invalidity"

CR: persisted until the Court of Appeal for Ontario in a
series of decisions in October of 2003 settled the law in
Ontario with respect to simple possession of marijuana
'Hitzig v. Canada; R. v. J.P. (2003); and R. v. Turmel.

JCT: It's easier to say you're bringing a law that's been
uncertain back than a law that's been repealed for two
years. But even Alan Young claimed his Ontario Court of
Appeal Hitzig case "resurrected the law." And the Crown
calls re-enacting an invalid statute "settling it?" What
gall to just make up words instead of using the factual
ones. As if I'm going to forget the court "settling the law"
is really the court resuscitating a repealed law. They can't
resurrect the death penalty once invalidated and they
couldn't resurrect the possession prohibition once
invalidated.  Remember how Crown Smith in Brantford when
asked to explain where one Ontario Court of Appeal for the
power to resurrect a statute that had been struck down by
another Ontario Court of appeal, he could only say they
wouldn't have done it if they couldn't have done it so they
can!

CR: The Court of Appeal concluded (i) that as of October 7
2003, the prohibition on simple possession of marijuana
under section 4(1) of the CDSA was of full force and effect

JCT: And the day before, it was not having been invalidated
by the Parker Court in 2001. But my Court of Appeal said
they couldn't overrule the Hitzig Court of Appeal but the
Hitzig Court of Appeal did overrule the Parker Court of
Appeal and say they were re-validating the prohibition.

CR: and (ii) that the period of legal uncertainty applied
"only" to the offence of possession of marijuana
simpliciter.

JCT: They just can't use the actual word in the Order, the
period of invalidity. Repeated use of "uncertainty" is their
way of hypnotizing less astute judges. Watch the watch, hear
the word "uncertainty," watch the watch, hear the word
"uncertainty," watch the watch...

CR: 9. Indeed, the Applicant (who has never claimed that he
has a medical need for marijuana)

JCT: I would have except that part of the trial, the
challenge that the law prohibiting preventative medical use
was unconstitutional, was skipped by Judge Belanger in his
rush to judgment. They keep repeating it, I keep knee-
jerking my answer.

CR: was the appellant in one of these rulings by the Court
of Appeal for Ontario in October 2003 which made it clear
that section 5(2) of the CDSA was never struck down as
unconstitutional by that court.

JCT: Sure, I never said it had been struck down. But I said
it had been invalidated by the Crown's failure to reprint a
new Criminal Code statute to reflect the Parker Court's
invalidation either by 1) exempting "marijuana" from S.4(1)
or nullifying it from Schedule II of prohibited substances.
Now I'm also complaining about the Criminal Code not being
reprinted to reflect the Krieger Court's invalidation of the
section 7 cultivation offence in Feb 4 2003.

CR: 10. The Applicant filed a notice of appeal of that
decision with this court in early 2004 which was dismissed
as abandoned."

JCT: By one judge Binnie who threw out the whole ready to go
application because one document had been submitted late.
3000 epileptics died at Binnie's hands and he's going to
hear about it from me when I respond to this paragraph!
Payback. I want to get as many judges on the record
supporting this tripe as possible.

CR: 11. The Court of Appeal for Ontario rejected the
Applicant's argument "again" on Feb 23 2007 when it stated:
"Mr. Turmel's enthusiastic arguments face an insurmountable
hurdle. This court has already rejected these types of
arguments.. and concluded that these offences remained in
full force and effect."

JCT: The insurmountable hurdle of not having five judges on
the panel to overrule the three who said "that these
offences remained in full force and effect." Insurmountable
only because Chief Justice McMurtry stacked the deck. Which
is why I get to go north.

CR: 12. In summary, the declaration in Parker did not have
the effect of repealing Canada's marihuana laws

JCT: Sure, the declaration in Parker did have the effect of
invalidating the section 4 possession offence and the
failure to reflect that invalidation in Section 4 forced the
invalidation to be effected by deleting "marijuana" from the
list of prohibited substances for all sections that referred
to the list. Had they exempted marijuana in Section 4(1)
saying it's an offence "to possess anything on Schedule II
except marijuana," sure, it would still be on the list for
all other offences. But when they didn't reflect the
invalidation with an exemption in the section, it could only
be invalidated in the schedule. For all offences including
"possession for the purpose."
Sure, Alan Young got the Hitzig Court of Appeal to order
Canada's judges to ignore S.2(2) of Parliament's
Interpretation Act to deem a statute that's been invalidated
to be "repealed" and to treat it as only "absent," or
"uncertain" as the new description of invalid in the Crown's
vocabulary, but courts can't resurrect penal laws, only
Parliament can. What an error causing untold tens of
thousands of bogus prosecutions.
I don't know what name to call the crime of the Court of
Appeal's Order to Canada's lower courts to continue
prosecutions under these bogus "resurrected" laws but I know
they've got the blood of all those epileptics and others who
could have benefited from the herb but for having been
fooled into believing Courts can bring penal sanctions that
have been struck down back to life.

CR: nor did it delete marijuana from Schedule II of the
CDSA. The Applicant continues to operate under a
"fundamental misconception" that during the period
uncertainty

JCT: While the Crown continues to operate under a
"fundamental misconception" that during the period of
invalidity was a period of uncertainty. It was pretty
certain to anyone who uses the word the court itself uses.
Crown doesn't like the word the court used to strike down
the possession offence as of no force and effect. They don't
like to use the word "invalid" that the Parker Court and
I've used in this documentation. They want to use the word
"uncertain" instead of "invalid" because it explains the
courts ideas so much more precisely than by using the
court's own words.
(Sorry about repetition, I'm practicing volleys for the
final edition.)

CR: legislation prohibiting possession for the purpose of
trafficking marijuana was somehow "repealed."

JCT: No, Section 7 cultivation and S.4 possession
prohibitions have been struck down and to be deemed repealed
while Section 5(2) and others have been invalidated by
implication and government failure to print a new code. As
Justice Earle-Renton once said: you can't "possess for the
purpose" if possession is legal. Well, you can't "possess
for the purpose" if cultivation and possession are legal.

CR: Given that the law with respect to possession marijuana
for the purpose of trafficking has never been deemed to be
of no force and effect,

JCT: Before...

CR: the Applicant's conviction was proper,

JCT: We're not on this appeal to talk about whether my
conviction was proper but whether the prosecution should be
prohibited on the grounds the Krieger Court invalidated the
cultivation offence.

CR: especially given that the Applicant himself admitted at
trial that "if the law's still alive, I'm in big trouble."

JCT: Back to the conviction that should be raised in Leave
Application #32013. But of course, if the law is not alive,
then I'm not in big trouble. And it the law is alive, then I
am in big trouble because I'm going to have to kill it all
over again. But admitting it's going to be big trouble is no
admission the conviction was proper. Besides, how can it be
proper when the judge skipped from the pre-plea pre-trial
motion decision right to the conviction in the same ruling?
I'm sure it's unheard of, such special treatment for my case
they can't win in any other way.

CR: B. The Ontario Court of Appeal has the Ultimate
Discretion As To When It Will or Will Not Convene A 5 Judge
Panel To Reconsider One Of Its Earlier Decisions.

JCT: So because the Chief Justice has the ultimate
discretion, he can stack the deck by not providing enough
judges once alerted it's going to try to challenge a
previous decision which was so important it was even
inscribed in the Martin's Criminal Code of Canada. And when
it was was not dealt with by the Supreme Court of Canada due
to Binnie's abortion for one signed order being submitted
late, it remains unresolved and never had a chance.

CR: 13. The respondent acknowledges that when "good reason"
exists to "doubt the correctness" of an earlier decision
from the Court of Appeal, the usual practice is for the
Chief Justice of that court to convene a five-judge panel of
the court to reconsider the earlier decision.

JCT: And I never got the chance to provide any "good reason
to doubt the correctness of the earlier decision" because
the court said it didn't have enough judges to overrule the
earlier decision.

CR: 14. The Applicant provided no basis whatsoever to the
Court of Appeal for Ontario for it to doubt the correctness
of its earlier decision in R. v. Turmel.

JCT: My appeal's purpose was to doubt the correctness of its
earlier decision in R. v. Turmel so impaneling insufficient
judges to check the correctness of its earlier decision is
no confirmation of its earlier correctness. Maybe this isn't
so clear to the legally-trained mind.

CR: 15. On June 12 2006, the Honorable Chief Justice
McMurtry of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, after
considering the positions of the parties, decided that the
appeals would be heard by a court composed of three judges
only. This notice was sent to the parties to the appeal by
way of a letter from the Senior Legal Officer of the Court
of Appeal.

JCT: Making sure there was nothing they could do for me.
Pre-determining my appeal with insufficient judges.

CR: 16. There is no basis to review the decision by Chief
Justice McMurtry not to convene a 5 judge panel.

JCT: I got not chance at redress and there's no basis to
review his decision to stack the deck?

CR: As the foregoing paragraphs demonstrate, the Applicant
was charged with an offence (possession for the purpose of
trafficking marijuana) that has never been "repealed" and
his appeal from conviction is therefore without merit.

JCT: The Crown keeps forgetting that this application is
seeking the remedy of prohibition, not acquittal. That's in
Leave Application #32013. App.#32012 is for the jury trial.
But this App.#32011 for prohibition because the law's dead.
Argument for my conviction shouldn't be here.

CR: C. This Application Raises No Issue of Public Importance

JCT: Har har har har. Both of my appeals were inscribed in
the Criminal Code that year, that's how important the Crown
thought they were. My Parker II appeal for the declaration
that the law died on Appellant Terry Parker Day 2001 and
resurrected on Cross-Appellant Hitzig Day 2003. And my
appeal for a declaration that all the marijuana laws died on
Terry Parker Day too. Both appeals generated by me with
issues now being raised in these appeals were published in
the Criminal Code of 2005 and the Government wanting to duck
final challenge to their new Criminal Code interpretations
by saying what the precedent they deem of enough importance
to enter into Canada's Criminal Code is of insufficient
national importance to be challenged one last time.

CR: 17. The law regarding the prohibition against possession
of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking is well settled.

JCT: I just pointed out it has not been though they'd like
it presumed to be correct.

CR: For approximately three years, the Applicant evaded a
trial on the merits by attempting to obtain injunctions
against prosecution in the Superior Court of Justice,

JCT: Yeah, like rich guys, I hit them with a flurry of legal
attacks before I had to word on a defence.

CR: disguised in the form of prohibition or certiorari.

JCT: "disguised." Har har har har. I guess it's disguised
because I'm not a lawyer.

CR: When those applications were dismissed, the Applicant
appealed to the Court of Appeal (twice) further delaying and
fragmenting his trial.

JCT: Har har har nyuk nyuk nyuk nyuk. The trial hadn't even
started so it couldn't be fragmented. That's why Justice
Belanger insisted on rushing to start it just before the
appeals against his jurisdiction could be heard. The appeals
were filed way before the trial had even started, it just
took an extra year for them to find some French speaking
judges.

CR: 18. The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed his
argument that he was not charged with an offence know to law
twice.

JCT: The first time, yes, the second time, no. The second 3-
judge panel said it was moot and they didn't have the
jurisdiction to overrule the previous 3-judge panel.

CR: He was told in 2003 that his position regarding the
"repealing" of the prohibition of cannabis marijuana from
schedule II of the CDSA was fundamentally misguided.

JCT: And I needed 5 judges to correct that ruling. And the
Crown's position regarding the Hitzig resurrection of the
repealed prohibition is fundamentally misguided.

CR: Despite the clear direction of the court, the Applicant
again brought the issue before the same court in 2007 and
was told that the previous decision was binding.

JCT: Right. Because I had not been given the 5-judge panel
necessary to overrule the previous 3-judge panel that was
not binding my present 3-judge panel.

CR: The decision by the Chief Justice of that Court not to
convene a panel of 5 judges was appropriate given that the
Applicant had no basis to the Court of Appeal to doubt the
correctness of its previous decision.

JCT: The Court refused to permit me to argue any basis
because they didn't have the numbers.

CR: This application is an attempt to again relitigate an
area of law that is well settled.

JCT: I wanted 5 judges to relitigate an area of the law that
is not well settled! Har har har har. It was never allowed
to be finally adjudicated but say that's "well settled."
Lawyer's will take any kind of win. No pride.

CR: As the Court of Appeal for Ontario recently noted, the
Applicant "faces an insurmountable hurdle"

JCT: That it takes 5 judges to overrule 3 judges and they
only gave me 3 judges knowing I was trying to overrule the
first three. Stacking the deck with the Crown now trying to
collect the crookedly won pot with no more argument.

CR: and this application is not deserving of this Court's
attention.

PART IV - SUBMISSIONS CONCERNING COSTS

19. The respondent does not seek costs.

PART V - ORDER REQUESTED

20. The respondent requests that the application for leave
to appeal be dismissed.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Dated at Toronto this 23rd day of May 2007.
Brian G. Puddington
Counsel for the Respondent
Attorney General of Canada.

JCT: Keep in mind, these are the basis for my official
response minus the laughter.

You have to admit, it's quite a shock to realize how corrupt
and sleazy one's own government arguments. Imagine having to
fight off Her Majesty the Crook. But with arguments as
crooked as these, she should be ashamed to call what her
courts deliver "justice."


--
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

JCT: Pierre Drouin was busted after the Alberta Court of
Appeal struck down the S.7 cultivation prohibition and
before they say Alan Young's Hitzig case resurrected it.
He's trying to prohibit cultivation charges. His beautiful
case is at http://yahoogroups.com/group/medpot/message/2246
This is the Crown response:

Court File: 32009
Appeal Court No: C44683

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

BETWEEN:

                        Pierre Drouin
                                                    Applicant
                                                  (Appellant)
                             and

                    Her Majesty The Queen
                                                   Respondent
                                                 (Respondent)

                Response to Leave Application
              Her Majesty the Queen, Respondent
                          (Rule 27)


CR: PART I - RESPONDENT'S STATEMENT OF FACTS

Overview of the Respondent's Position:

1. The Applicant claims that he is charged with an offence
unknown to law. He was charged with production of cannabis
marihuana (4 years ago) and instead of raising his concerns
with the trial judge, he has essentially paralyzed the
prosecution by advancing an application for prerogative
relief (prohibition) that is without merit.

JCT: Har har. Paralyzed by something without merit. If it
was without merit, it would have been quashed by the court,
not dismissed on the grounds the Appellant's stay pending
appeal of the Krieger invalidation of the S.7 prohibition
against cultivation remains stayed after the appeal is lost.

CR: This application for leave to appeal should be dismissed
for the following reasons:
a) Interlocutory appeals in criminal matters should not be
encouraged.

JCT: They can't stay they're not allowed because they are.
So they argue because they shouldn't be encouraged, mine
shouldn't be allowed. Why? Because they shouldn't be
encouraged in general. Har har har.

CR: b) The application has no merit.

JCT: Can't wait until they try to prove it.

CR: c) The application raises no issue of public importance.

JCT: The most important cases in Canadian medpot history,
both decisions in the Criminal Code of Canada, but it's not
of national importance....

CR: The Facts:

2. On June 11, 2003 the appellant was charged with
production of marijuana contrary to section 7(1) of the
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA), possession for
the purpose of trafficking marijuana contrary to section
5(2) of the CDSA and five counts of possessing a prohibited
weapon contrary to the Criminal Code.

3. After being committed for trial, but before his trial in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Applicant brought
an application for an order prohibiting prosecution of the
count under section 7(1) of the CDSA as it was the
Applicant's position that it was no longer known to law
because Parliament had not re-enacted the section 7(1)
offence since one Court of Appeal judge of the Alberta Court
of Queen's Bench struck down the provision.(2)
(2) R. v. Krieger (2000), 225 D.L.R. (4th) 164 (Alta.Q.B.)

JCT: Notice how they don't mention how they lost their
appeal against her decision and then lost their application
for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court too. Saying it was
struck down by one little judge as if the Supreme Court will
forget what they know about their own case. Well, if the
Crown are going to treat the Supreme Court as stupid enough
to forget the facts of their own Krieger appeal, who am I to
doubt what they know.

CR: Nadeau J. of the Superior Court of Justice dismissed the
application, concluding that there has never been a
constitutional or legislative gap with respect to the
prohibition against production of marihuana in Ontario and
"the most that can be said about the prohibition against
production in Alberta is that there is an existing order
suspending the declaration of invalidity.(3)
(3) R. v. Pierre Drouin, (unreported decision of Nadeau J.
of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, dated Dec 5 2005)
at page 17 (page 24 of the Applicant's Application for Leave
to appeal.)

JCT: Again, the Crown is going to argue that when a federal
statute is struck down in Ontario, it has to be struck down
in each and every other province where prosecutors may
continue busting people in provinces where the prohibition
hasn't been declared unconstitutional yet. What a donkey's
position.

CR: 4. The Applicant's appeal to the Court of Appeal for
Ontario was dismissed on February 23 2007. The Court of
Appeal agreed that in the province of Alberta, there was a
suspension of the order of declaration of invalidity, and
that declaration was eventually remedied by the enactment of
the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (SOR/2001-227)
(MMARs). Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Applicant's
appeal.

JCT: So the Court said the Appellant's stay pending appeal
of the Order of Invalidity continues on after the appeal is
dismissed.
You have to wonder why there is even a Section 65 of the
Supreme Court of Canada Act for obtaining stays pending
appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada which is what I say
they needed to get, not rely on the stay from the now
defunct "functus officio" court whose official function is
over.
But they say the old stay was forgotten and has to be lifted
even though there is way to apply to remove a stay from a
Court that refuses to entertain any motion on a "functus
officio" file. Isn't it neat that this incredible government
crap gets down in the official record forever. I just want 3
of Canada's highest judges to sign that they agree this is
so.

CR: PART II: QUESTIONS IN ISSUE

5. The Notice of Application for Leave to Appeal filed by
the Applicant poses essentially one question:

i) Did R. v. Krieger (2000), 225 D.L.R. (4th) 164
(Alta.Q.B.) affirmed in R. v. Krieger (2003), 225 D.L.R.
(4th) 183 (Alta.C.A.) invalidate section 7(1) of the
Controlled Substances Act?

6. The Respondent submits not only that the foregoing
question ought to to be answered in the negative but that it
does not raise any issue of national importance that
deserves the attention of this Court especially since the
medical use of marijuana in Canada is at the heart of the
case law upon which the Applicant relies to make his
submission is now settled law in Canada.

JCT: When will they get the difference between saying the
law is unconstitutionally bad and the law is dead? This is
not an issue of medical use, it's an issue of whether the
law has been repealed or not, the reason it was repealed
being immaterial to our cases even if Pierre qualifies and I
do not.
As for the law being settled, with Justice Binnie throwing
out my first challenge to the first R. v. Turmel Prohibition
ruling that got into the Criminal Code without any
adjudication and with the new prohibition challenge at the
Court of Appeal being dismissed for want of jurisdiction for
insufficient judges to deal with the challenge, it's hard to
call that "settled." Har har har har. They hope.

CR: PART III - ARGUMENT

A. Interlocutory Appeals in Criminal Matters Should Not Be
Encouraged.

7. At the outset, the Respondent submits that this case is
an example of why interlocutory appeals in criminal matters
ought not to be encouraged.(6)
(6) R. v. Meltzer, [1989]1 S.C.R. 1764 at pp.1773-1774; see
also Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1994]3 S.C.R.
835, at p.857; R. v. Adams [1995]4 S.C.R. 707 at para. 17;
neither subs. 24(1) of the Charter nor subs. 52(1) of the
Constitution act, 1982, provide any right of appeal on an
interlocutory motion on a criminal matter: R. v.
Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott (1985), 16 C.C.C.(3d)1
(Ont.C.A.)

JCT: But the Criminal Code does provide for applications for
prohibition and for right of appeal. Are they going to
change it because the Crown says what is isn't so? How do
you think lawyers get rich? Extraordinary remedies are
offered because extraordinary circumstances mandate applying
to a court of proper jurisdiction for innovative but just
remedy.

CR: This is grounded on strong policy reasons explained by
L'Heureux-Dube J. in this court's decision in R. v. Laba,
where she stated that such appeals would fragment the
criminal trial process and have the potential of creating
lengthy delays.

JCT: But the trial hadn't even started since this was a pre-
plea application. Why are they complaining about a
fragmentation of a trial that hadn't even started yet? Just
lawyers saying anything in the hopes the court would be
stupid enough to buy it. All an application to prohibit does
is adjourn the trial until all legal avenues are exhausted.
Just like for rich guys.

CR: 8. It bears repeating, the Applicant's charges have been
placed on hold, while he has brought an injunction against
prosecution in Superior Court of Justice disguised in the
form of prohibition in a continuing effort to evade a trial
on the merits.

JCT: As for "disguised in the form of prohibition, I guess
it's only undisguised if the flurry of paperwork comes from
a rich guy's lawyers. And sure, if the statute is invalid,
Applicant does want to avoid the waste of time and resources
for a trial on the merits.

CR: 9. When he appealed to the Court of Appeal, the
Applicant requested the same remedy as in the Superior Court
of Justice. In reality, this application for leave to appeal
is another attempt to do an end-run around the rule against
interlocutory criminal appeals.

JCT: There is no rule against appeals of prohibition
applications if the rich guys wants to put up a fight.
Because paupers are using it, they want to deny the right is
there. So, is the Criminal Code wrong for providing recourse
to an appeal for prerogative remedy and is the Crown right
in saying that there is a rule against this appeal for
prerogative remedy?

CR: 10. At no time has the Applicant raised a jurisdictional
issue that warrants the intervention of a Superior Court.

JCT: Considering the first 100,000 bogus busts due to the
Parker Scandal were exposed by the 4000 stays to be
prosecuted under the invalid Section 4 statute, of course,
the next 150,000 busts due to the Krieger Scandal under an
invalid Section 7 statute is just as jurisdictional.

CR: His remedy (if any) lies before a trial judge and all
the issues raised by the Applicant in his claim that he is
not charged with an offence known to law can be addressed by
the court at that time.

JCT: The screw-ups giving me advice. Drouin was being tried
by a Superior Court judge and he can move for prohibition to
a Superior Court judge. And he can appeal the prohibition
before wasting his time on a new constitutional challenge
and complicated medical defence.

CR: B. The Application is Without Merit because Any
Declaration of Invalidity of Section 7(1) of the CDSA has
never taken effect.

11. Despite a lack of evidence that the Applicant has a
legitimate need for cannabis to treat a medical condition,

JCT: Drouin receiving his Health Canada exemption is
evidence that the Applicant has a legitimate need for
cannabis to treat a medical condition and the medical
arguments will be raised if he is put to trial once a ruling
has been made whether the Krieger invalidation took effect
or not.

CR: the Applicant relies on the decision of R. v. Krieger.
In Krieger, the accused was charged with possession of
marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and production of
marijuana in connection with a 29 plant grow operation.
Krieger led evidence at his trial that he suffered from a
severe medical condition and that marijuana was the only
effective means of treating his condition. Krieger argued
that the marijuana prohibitions in the CDSA infringed his
Section 7 rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

12. The Trial Judge held that the prohibition against
production of marijuana was unconstitutional to the extent
that it prevented Krieger from cultivating marihuana for his
own medical purposes. The trial judge declared section 7 of
the CDSA unconstitutional, "but suspended the declaration of
invalidity for a period of one year."

CR: 13. With respect to the offence of possession for the
purpose of trafficking, the Trial Judge rejected Krieger's
argument that he should be permitted to distribute marijuana
to others for therapeutic purposes. The Trial Judge was not
prepared to grant Krieger "an unfettered discretion to
distribute cannabis marijuana to whomever he and his
compassion club members decide might benefit from the
product.(9)
(9) R. v. Krieger (2000) 225 D.L.R. (4th) 164 (Alta.Q.B.)
paragraphs 50-53

JCT: Pierre and Real did not raise the distribution issue
which irrelevant to the cultivation issue herein. But the
Crown does like introducing non-relevant stuff, don't they?

CR: 14. The Crown appealed the Trial Judge's order declaring
the offence of production or marijuana (section 7 of the
CDSA) unconstitutional. Before the hearing, an Order was
made by the Court of Appeal for Alberta staying the effect
of the trial judge's declaration of invalidity and the order
granting Krieger a constitutional exemption.

JCT: An order staying the invalidation was granted by one
judge pending appeal. The Crown is trying to fool the
Supreme Court into forgetting the facts of the Krieger case
they had before them. I can't get over how the Crown can say
such distortion to the Supreme Court. Seems to show quite
the disrespect to warp facts in a case they already dealt
with.
It is quite relevant to point out that the Order was granted
to the Appellant on the grounds they had an appeal coming up
and it's pretty obvious that an Appellant's stay can't last
past when the Appellant is no longer the Appellant. So they
hide the fact it's an Appellant stay to just make it sound
like 3 judges of the Court of Appeal just stayed it forever.

CR: This Order was to remain in effect until further Order
of the Court of Appeal for Alberta.

JCT: The question is whether the Final Order dismissing the
appeal is a "further order" terminating the "stay pending
appeal."

CR: 15. Ultimately, the Court of Appeal dismissed the
Crown's appeal from the trial judge's declaration of
invalidity which entailed that the stay of proceedings
against Krieger on the production charge was confirmed once
leave to appeal was dismissed by this Court.

JCT: No, the stay of proceedings wasn't confirmed "once
leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed." It was
confirmed by the Alberta Court of Appeal once a stay
pursuant to S.65 of the Supreme Court Act was not obtained
without 60 days of the dismissal of the Crown's Alberta
appeal. But I wonder if the Supreme Court judges will be
fooled into thinking the Krieger decision only took effect
when the Supreme Court threw out their final move a year
later despite the Crown not getting a stay pending that
application for leave to appeal. And notice that the Crown
remembers the part about Krieger's charge being stayed in
their loss to the Supreme Court but conveniently forget to
mention the order striking down of section 7 which this
court itself cite in its note on the case!

CR: Nonetheless, the order suspending the declaration of
invalidity remains in force, as it was suspended
indefinitely by Order of the Court.

JCT: It's as if repeating it over and over again will
hypnotize the court. Why? It's in the why. Why did the Crown
get the stay? Did the Crown argue that Krieger's judge
wrong? No, that was done and rejected in the appeal. No, the
Crown only argued they were Appellant and deserved a stay
pending appeal. That was the reason for the stay, because
there was an appeal.
Now that the appeal has been dismissed, it seems
presumptuous to argue that the Crown loss doesn't take
effect because the Crown was appealing and lost. But it
still doesn't take effect because the court forgot to remove
it. What an asinine limb for the Crown to out on.
So, by omitting to mention that it was an order granted on
grounds there as an appeal going on gives the impression
that it's an indefinite order issued by a panel of three
judges when it was issued by only one judge pending appeal.
Aren't government lawyers sleazy?
I guess they'll make them judges like they fast-tracked the
shyster, David Frankel, who dreamed up this trash
interpretation of an Appellant's stay lasting forever from
BC Superior Court last March to the BC Court of Appeal two
months later. Talk about a reward for 150,000 bogus busts. I
wonder if he can be impeached?

CR: The judicial stay of the order declaring the production
offence of no force and effect has never been vacated.

JCT: And there's no procedure to file a motion to a closed
file, either. So it can never be vacated. Neat, eh? But
constant repetition does not a case make and repetition
doesn't make an Appellant's stay pending appeal continue on
after the appeal. Imagine, 150,000 bogus busts based on such
a lame excuse.

CR: This entails that the declaration of invalidity has
never,  in fact, taken effect.(11)
See. R. v. Krieger [2003] S.C.C.A. No. 114

JCT: Repetition that the stay pending appeal continues after
the appeal with no way of removing it once the court..

CR: 16. The Krieger decisions have no application to the
charges against the Applicant since (i) the decision of
invalidity in Krieger was suspended indefinitely and never
in fact took effect and (ii) any constitutional deficiency
which did exist at the time of the Krieger decision (in
1999) no longer exists following the enactment (in 2003) of
the MMAR SOR/2003-227 and more recent Regulations Amending
the MMAR SOR/2003-287 (MMAR Amendments). The Applicant's
reliance on Krieger is misplaced.

JCT: If they keep repeating it enough, who needs to argue
why! And it's the MMAR in 2001, MMAR Amendments in 2003.

CR: C. This application raises no issue of public importance

JCT: This is insulting. 150,000 bogus busts are exposed by
an invalidation of S.7 that was not acknowledged, much like
the Parker invalidation of possession was not acknowledged
until they'd obtained 100,000 bogus convictions and had to
drop 4000 existing charges filed while the law was invalid.
But if they keep just denying it, it's denied.

CR: 17. In summary, the Applicant advances the startling
proposition that there is currently no valid prohibition
against cultivation of cannabis marijuana. There is no basis
whatsoever to assert that the law prohibiting the production
of marijuana was ever of no force and effect in Ontario.

JCT: They love to argue that a Parker declaration has to be
obtained in each and every one of Canada's 14 provincial
jurisdictions, pretty laughable but these are all lawyers,
judges too, so really stupid stuff gets heard all the time.

CR: This is evidenced simply by the fact that all courts in
Canada (including Alberta) have continued, without
interruption, to prosecute and sentence production of
marijuana offences on a daily basis and the various Courts
of Appeal across the country have continued to endorse these
decisions.

JCT: Har har har har. During the two years John The Engineer
was arguing the Parker invalidation of S.4 possession
prohibition had taken effect, all Canada's courts were
prosecuting and sentencing possession of marijuana offences
on a daily basis. Finally, the Court of Appeal found that
John The Engineer was right and all Canada's judges and
lawyers were wrong. Once again, John The Engineer is arguing
that the Krieger invalidation of the S.7 cultivation
prohibition has taken effect while Canada's courts are once
again all prosecuting and sentencing cultivation of
marijuana offences on a daily basis. It's deja vu. Lawyers
wrong, Engineer right. So it is no validation to point out
that all the courts that were wrong last time are right this
time.

CR: 18. The constitutional deficiencies identified by the
jurisprudence including the Krieger line of cases,

JCT: Pierre's only referring to one Krieger cultivation
count while the Crown's trying to confuse things by bringing
in non-relevant trafficking one.

CR: stemmed from the fact that the CDSA did not provide an
exemption for the medical use of marijuana. This issue has
now been properly addressed by the adoption of the Marijuana
Medical Access Regulations as amended.

JCT: Too late. Or is too late just as good as on time?

CR: There is therefore no merit in the position advanced by
the Applicant and no issue of public importance to justify
that leave to appeal be granted in the instant case.

JCT: Absolutely no argument, just constant repetition of
denial or the bogus pretexts used so far.

CR: PART IV - SUBMISSIONS CONCERNING COSTS

19. The respondent does not seek costs.

PART V - ORDER REQUESTED

20. The respondent requests that the application for leave
to appeal be dismissed.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Dated at Toronto this 23rd day of May 2007.
Brian G. Puddington
Counsel for the Respondent
Attorney General of Canada.

JCT: Pretty weak case for the Crown. I'll be putting
this into our final Reply to be filed on Monday.
Stay tuned.


--
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

JCT: In Pierre Drouin's last report on his pre-trial in
Ontario Superior Court, he mentioned a letter from the
Supreme Court. It was a May 4 2007 letter we all received:

Dear Mr. Turmel:
Re: John Turmel v. Her Majesty The Queen
File No 32011 (C/A file#: C44587)

This will acknowledge receipt of your application for leave
to appeal to the Supreme of Canada, which application has
been accepted for filing.
The Court file number in this case is 32011. All parties are
asked to refer to this number in any communication with the
Registry Branch concerning the above proceedings.
Please do not hesitate to contact and officer of the....
Michel Jobidon
Senior Registry Clerk
Cc: Mr. Steve Coroza, Mr. Francois Lacasse

JCT: What it means is that everything is in proper order and
the Crown had to respond to each in 30 days. once the Crown responds and
we Reply, it goes to three
judges for leave to appeal to all nine.

So we're in before three and no one Judge Binnie gets to
short circuit the question again. Except that almost 3000
epileptics have died who would not have died if Justice
Binnie had not delayed this life and death question for two
extra years because he didn't like the explanation for
submitting one document late. Imagine aborting the whole
ready case, all documents filed and ready to go to 3 judges,
because of such a flimsy technicality with 1500 preventable
epileptic deaths a year at stake! He's covered in blood and
I'm going to get to the the boots to him now that the Crown
have filed their responses and I'm free to do my job as an
attacking Parliamentarian.

Remember, I'm a Guinness Record "attempted-Parliamentarian"
who has so far forced the courts to admit a Guinness Record
Parker Screw-up 4000 mistakes they had to stay;
the "attempted-Parliamentarian" who is trying to force the
Crown to correct a Guinness Record "Parker Scandal" 100,000
bogus convictions made during the 2 years they admit the
possession prohibition was invalid, between my Terry Parker
"Invalidation of Prohibition" Day after July 2001 and Alan
Young's Hitzig "Revalidation of Prohibition" Day before
October 7 2003 when his Hitzig Court of Appeal for Ontario
said they were resurrecting the prohibition that had been
admittedly invalid for the past two years;
the "attempted-Parliamentarian" who is trying to force the
Crown to stay or correct a Guinness Record "Krieger scandal"
of all 150,000 bogus marijuana convictions since Krieger Day
February 4 2003.

So far, I've already scored more than 4,000 stayed
prosecutions. But that's only one month's worth of busts,
only a part of the main pot of erasing the 100,000 bogus
registered over the two years the law was invalid which I'm
still now claiming at the Supreme Court.
And I'm going after the latest round of bogus prosecutions
and convictions since the Krieger decision that invalidated
the cultivation prohibition with the possession prohibition.

The court deigns tell as Guinness Record Parliamentarian
that they are going to ignore the Interpretation Act and
create a new penal statute. Not without a fight they're not.
The Engineer was right and all Canada's bar and judiciary
were wrong about the Parker invalidation having taken effect
on Terry Parker Day and The Engineer will be right and all
Canada's bar and judiciary will be wrong about the Krieger
cultivation invalidation having taken effect on Feb 4 2003.

The fact Justice Binnie has delayed this day of reckoning
has cost the lives of 3000 Canadian epileptics whose rights
had been declared violated and who remained unprotected from
the unconstitutional prohibition due to manipulations by the
Crown in the courts.

Courts did wrongly decide.
Canadians wrongly died.
There's nowhere for Binnie to hide.

I didn't say much about the genocide of the Canada's sick
earlier because I wanted to let the Crown get on the record
first. You'll note that I never even raised all my "Hitzig
can't resurrect the law" arguments. I've given the Crown the
chance to make the argument the "Hitzig can resurrect the
law" argument because it wasn't made invalid pursuant to the
Interpretation Act, it was only made "absent" until the
Court could fix it if Parliament failed to do so.

I haven't even read the responses to my three applications
because I want to start my parsing with our best shot first,
Pierre Drouin's analogous Krieger shot at establishing that
Section 7 became invalid when the Crown failed to get a stay
out of the Supreme Court of Canada to stay the Krieger
invalidation because the fools relied on the Appellant's
stay out of the Alberta Court of Appeal continuing on after
the appeal had been dismissed. Har har har har, nyuk nyuk
nyuk nyuk.

Yes, yesterday, on the very 30th day, I got the Crown's
response in the mail to all three of my applications and I'd
bet Pierre and Real got theirs too.
I'll be typing them up and posting them in the order I filed
them with Pierre's Section 7 Krieger challenge, a perfect
Krieger analogy, cultivating with proven medical need,
first.
Then on to my Section 5(2) challenge to quash my conviction
for "possession for bad purpose" during the period that the
"possession" prohibition was invalid!
Then on to my Section 5(2) challenge to quash all marijuana
convictions under all sections.
And finally on to my challenge to allowing lies on the
indictment. I was charged with possession of under 3Kg.
That's not true. I had more which warranted a jury trial the
Crown did not want me to have. So they lied on the
indictment and Justice Peter Wright, Justice Macleod, and
Justices Labrosse, Sharpe and Blair say that's okay.

Stay tuned for the final real live arguments going on in
"Abolitionist v. Prohibitionist Herbal Remedy Wars."


--
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

>Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 00:18:46 +0000
>From: dpeted@... (petesrecycling)
>Subject: Dynamic Duo back from Cochrane Superior Court
>To: MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com

High my friends
Me and Real are back from our pre-trial, lol.

They had us up for pre-trial today but that all changed when
we got there. The crown attorney didn't know we had gotten
accepted in Supreme Court so I showed him my letter from the
court.

He got kinda nervous when I told him I was taking this all
the way to Ottawa. He then said: well that's too bad, I had
a good deal for you today so we can all stop this court.

I started laughing at him and told him I need to make sure
this injustice doesn't keep happening to sick poor people
without defence. He knows exactly what am trying to do and
for once I felt he respected me.

So anyways here come the judge I didn't even get his name.
lol lol lol. Right away the crown starts by telling the
judge we can't go forward with the pre-trial because both me
and Real had gotten letters from the Supreme Court saying we
are accepted.

Both the judge and crown didn't understand what the letter
said so I told them it meant our case was gonna be reviewed
by 3 judges and that would take up to 90 days, then if
accepted it would take another 30 days to get an answer and
then after all that we get a date. So I asked the judge to
give us 3 to 5 months before re setting a date for our
trial.

The crown then got up again and told the judge that maybe we
didn't need to do all that, he had a great deal to offer me
to stop all proceedings, I cracked up laughing.

Right away the judge saw I wasn't interested but still asked
if there was a way to fix all this without Supreme Court
and a trial. I said: no I've been tortured for 4 years your
honor, I am a victim of the system and this needs to stop.
Too many sick people get screwed by the system.

So then the judge asked me if I would at least hear out what
the crown had to offer. I said: sure, I have an open mind
but I don't think I'm going to hear what I need to hear. But
anyways, the crown got up and asked the judge if he wanted
to be present to discuss this little offer. The judge looked
at me and asked if I had any objection. I said no.

The crown started by saying I always respected the court, I
always showed up even in major snow storm. He also noticed
that my health had worsened in the past couple of years we've
been in court. Then he started on how I have a past criminal
record, when I got busted I didn't have an exemption, that
the court has been stalled so many times because of me
filing my applications and going to the court of appeal, now
Supreme Court, so basically blaming me for this case taking
4 years, lol lol. He also mentioned in there that I had an
exemption now and that obviously I had a medical condition.

Then he said he wanted to give me 3 months house arrest, 6
months probation, they would drop the trafficking charges,
the weapon charges and I would only need to plead guilty to
cultivation.

Right away I got up and told the judge he just had lost me
there. I then explain to the judge that if I pleaded guilty
to any C.D.S.A. charges that I would loose my exemption for
10 years and would not be able to grow my meds anymore. So I
told the crown to forget about it. The judge wasn't to f
impressed with me because I didn't accept their deal.

Then he went on to explain to me that if the Supreme Court
didn't accept us that we were back here in Cochrane and
that we where gonna go straight to trial and get prosecuted
and that it was possible that we lost and went to jail. I
started laughing and told him I will never serve a day in
jail for these bogus charges, plus they can't put sick
people like me away in jail. He started laughing.

Then the judge asked me what I wanted to do?I told him I had
gone through the court system for 4 years and every court
told me they didn't have the authority to deal with me and
that I needed to go to a higher court so I went to Superior
Court here, I then went to Court of Appeal  they said take it
to a higher court so now I am back here to tell you am going
to the Supreme Court.

In Toronto I didn't even try to defend myself right from the
start the judges told us they didn't have the authority to
deal with us because we are challenging the Hitzig case
which is an appeal case so we are taking it to Ottawa. It's
the top and we need to change a few laws and it's there I am
gonna get that done.

Then i told the judge I didn't mean any disrespect but I
couldn't take the Crown's deal and am fighting it all the
way to Ottawa.

The judge told me, like 4 times after all this, that it was
in my rights to do all this. I smiled and thanked him for
his time.

So they put off out trial and gave us a new assignment court
date on september 7th.

The Crown then got back up and told the judge that once the
Supreme Court would be finished that his offer would still
be the same, that he would not look into more time or
anything like that.

After the court was done the Crown came and told me he
didn't know that if you pleaded guilty to any C.D.S.A.
charges that you lost your exemption. I told him: listen it
took me 8 years to get this and now you're asking me to give
it up for 10 years, what kind of deal is that? So he said:
look Pierre you've always shown up in court, you always
were respectful with me and the court. I know you're not a
bad guy now so am gonna check to see what I can do and maybe
we can make a meeting a settle all this.

I told him I appreciated what he was saying but I didn't
accept the bullshit that was done to me and that I wanted
all my equipment back plus a cost for the 4 years of
traveling, pain, suffering and the whole chabang.

And of course I want to make pot legal for every one
yeaaaaaaaaa.

So there you have it people. That's what happened today in
court. Then Real just said the same thing as me, lol lol.

The battle goes on my friends, you all have a wonderful day.


--
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

JCT: Randy Post was busted for having 20 marijuana plants in
his back yard. He uses marijuana for arthritis. It was an
enclosed yard so one of his neighbors had to have
complained.

He has since started looking for a doctor to submit his
exemption application. He filed his Prohibition application
in Superior Court on the grounds of the Krieger invalidation
of section 7 in 2002 which was never re-enacted by
Parliament. It was to be heard on Thursday.

Doug Nielsen, also of Paris Ontario, had helped him prepare
the Section 7 timeline.

Superior Court Justice Whitten was presiding but before
Randy could start on his Krieger application, Crown Attorney
Arsenault withdrew the charges saying there was no warrant
and no proof the pot in his backyard was his. Or so that's
the pretext for backing off they used.

Another medpot user uses the Krieger invalidation to scare
the Crown off! Just more regular good news for our
Abolitionist team.


--
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

JCT: S. David Frankel, the shyster responsible for wrongly
busting 200,000 Canadians for marijuana cultivation
and possession because he argues a stay out of the "functus
officio" (closed file) Alberta Court of Appeal continues
to prevent the Order of Acton J. declaring the
prohibitions unconstitutional from taking effect. If he's
wrong about a "stay pending appeal" continuing on after the
appeal has been dismissed, he's responsible for the 200,000
bogus busts since Feb 3 2003.

A few weeks ago, I wrote how the incompetent lawyer received
his reward by an appointment to the B.C. Superior Court in
March 2007.
http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/news/ja/2007/doc_31983.html

>BRITISH COLUMBIA JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS ANNOUNCED

>OTTAWA, March 2, 2007 -- The Honourable Rob Nicholson,
P.C., Q.C., M.P. for Niagara Falls, Minister of Justice and
Attorney General of Canada, today announced the following
appointments:
>The Honourable S. David Frankel, Q.C. , Senior General
Counsel, Public Prosecution Service of Canada in Vancouver,
is appointed judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
Mr. Justice Frankel received a Bachelor of Laws in 1973 and
a Bachelor of Science in 1970 from the University of British
Columbia and was admitted to the Bar of British Columbia in
1974. He articled with Guild, Yule & Company in Vancouver
and since 1974 has practised with the federal Department of
Justice developing an expertise in the area of Charter
litigation, criminal law and constitutional law.

JCT: So the man responsible for Canada's greatest travesty
of justice "Mr. Justice" not only became a judge but he's
been promoted again just two months later:

>Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 14:52:16 +0000
>From: paquettemarc@... (Marc Paquette)
>Subject: Federal justice minister names 4 judges
>To: MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com

Compliments of: http://medpot.net/forums
http://medpot.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=3D50108

Federal justice minister names 4 judges
Appointments made for courts in Quebec, Ontario, B.C., and
Yukon  Friday, May 11, 2007 | 3:03 PM ET  CBC News

Federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson announced Friday the
appointments of four judges to courts in three provinces and
one territory.
David Frankel, a judge with the Supreme Court of British
Columbia, has been appointed to both the British Columbia
Court of Appeal and Yukon Court of Appeal.

JCT: Wow. Appointed in March to the Superior Court and
promoted two months later to the highest court in B.C. It
shows how being connected gets you moving up fast. The worst
lawyer in Canadian history rising to the top of his
profession. It sure says something about the justice if this
"bottom of the barrel" barrister rises to the top. Quite the
reward for causing the improper prosecutions of almost a
quarter million Canadians.

--
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

JCT: Ontario Provincial Court of Justice in Brampton got
started about 10:30. Chris Leafloor for the Crown. Ontario
Provincial Court Judge Clements presiding.

I found out that that the Crown had received the transcripts
from the last hearing but Parker had not. When I mentioned
it to the judge, he said: you didn't contact the clerk? I
guess we should have. We will. So that may be online
eventually.

Judge Clements started by saying he hadn't had time to read
the materials. Who can blame him? The Crown loaded him with
a file 8 inches thick. With Parker only providing a quarter
inch's worth of it, the judge knew the Crown was serious
about this. I wonder if that's how they deter a judge from
reading the material in advance? Like Chris joked, or not:
he who files the most material wins. But who wants to break
into such a monster file the night before?

Anyway, the judge had not only not read the Crown's two 3-
inch thick binders but had also not read our 1/8 inch thick
12-page Reply which contained all our arguments. We were
going to have to go over it all now. No problem. It's all
covered in Parker's Reply at:
http://yahoogroups.com/medpot/messages/2238

But first, the judge ran through how he thought things had
gone on; with a few small mistakes which will be corrected
when he reads the actual Reply. He thought it boiled down to
two main grounds for the return of the controlled substance:
1) Parker's S.4 Pitt protection against possession offence
was still alive or 2) his Sheppard S.7 protection against
cultivation offence was alive too. The Crown pointed out
there were actually five grounds listed but the judge will
see that when he reads the Reply.

1) Pitt exemption
The Crown simply repeated that Superior Court Justice
Pitt had been set aside by Superior Court Justice Chapnik
without explaining how one equal judge gets power to set
aside the ruling of another equal judge. When I asked what
legislation says it's okay for a Superior Court Judge's
Criminal Order to be set aside by an equivalent Superior
Court Judge's Civil Order even if at the recommendation of
the Crown and Professor Alan Young, the only point the judge
could make was that the Court of Appeal had specifically
said it was okay by them that Chapnik did it and so he was
bound to obey their decision. The Nuremberg cop-out. "Just
following orders." Orders of Dr. Mengele to deny this man
his medicine" didn't stand up in Nuremberg and won't stand
up in the posterity's court of public opinion. Still, it's
not that bad because we can appeal higher for remedy.

2) Sheppard exemption
The Crown argued that when the Parker One decision said
that Judge Sheppard had no power to read in an exemption to
the possession prohibition so they were replacing his
exemption from S.4(1) with an order striking down S.4(1) and
a personal court-exemption, then it also meant that Sheppard
did not have the power to read in an exemption to the
cultivation prohibition which they did not replace because
they could not strike it down because it had not been raised
before them. So they struck down his Sheppard S.7 protection
but did not replace it with an exemption like they did for
the S.4 offence. So because the Crown did not appeal his S.7
cultivation exemption, the Court couldn't strike S.7 down
but it could take away his Sheppard S.7 exemption leaving
him unprotected against S.7. And leaving him once again, on
Aug. 1 2001, prohibited from the cultivation of marijuana
offence.

I could only point out that the court could not have left
him unprotected because it would have rendered the
prohibition once again unconstitutional, just as they had
originally found. If Parker's unprotected, the law is bad,
he'd just have to prove it again.

3) Hitzig "medical" exemption
I did use the Hitzig case in the way Derek Francisco used
it to argue that: "Those who establish medical need are
simply exempted." But the judge said that it meant that
"people who establish medical and get exemptions are simply
exempt." Of course, they're not talking about people who can
get exemptions who are simply exempted, that's obvious.
They're talking about people brought to trial before them
who have been charged because they do not have exemptions.
It's people who are charged who show medical need to be
simply exempt, not people who aren't charged.

4) Hitzig resurrection
And of course, we got into whether the Hitzig Court could
resurrect the law. I pointed out how the Parker Court of
Appeal had said it wasn't up to the courts to fix the
legislation and then the Hitzig Court of Appeal said it was
fixing the legislation.

The funniest part of all was when Leafloor cited out how
Section 2(2) of the Interpretation Act says that when a
court declares a law to be of no force and effect, it is to
be deemed repealed but then pointed out where the Hitzig
Court of Appeal had said that when a court declares a law to
be of no force and effect, it is to be deemed "inoperative,"
not repealed. Imagine the Crown laying out the indictment
against the Hitzig judges for usurping the prerogative of
Parliament perfectly. Parliament says "do this" and a court
says to ignore Parliament and "do that." That's the point I
later stressed, these judges told Canada's judges to ignore
Parliament's Act and obey their Order!! And the Crown uses
it to point out that the Order of the Court supersedes the
law of the land!!! It is often part of a Crown strategy to
make my points for me and pretend that they worked to score
for them.

The judge pointed out how the Hitzig Court had found it
reasonable to have a "gatekeeper" dispensing the drug and
that the Court of Appeal had fixed it so that they ruled the
MMAR Marijuana Medical Access Regulations were now
functioning fine. I could only point out that exempting one
in a thousand who need it might be construed as success for
a lawyer but not for an engineer. Remember, for an engineer,
one in a thousand failures causing death is unsuccessful.
Until every epileptic is protected, it can't be said to
work. For a lawyer, one in a thousand causing life is not
failure. The difference between  a lawyer and engineer is
the difference between between a competent man and a not
less competent man but an incompetent man. Imagine them
saying that protecting one in a thousand is good enough. I
could only protest that it may be good enough for lawyers
but not good enough for reality.

The Crown again tried to argue that the Parker Two case was
asking the same medical relief as the Parker One, to declare
the prohibition unconstitutional. I pointed out he wasn't
asking to declare it unconstitutional since I was an
applicant and I wasn't sick. So it couldn't have been the
same request. It was to declare it unconstitutional since
Terry Parker Day.

5) Krieger invalidation
I pointed out how the Krieger invalidation of section 7
applied to section 4.

For most of the two hours, the judge was looking for a way
to wriggle out of it. He kept hitting me with Alan Young's
damned Hitzig decision and I kept hitting back that it was a
travesty that had to be ignored and was still being now
challenged at the Supreme Court.

Judge Clements reserved his judgment to June 28. It's the
same day that Rudy Seegobin returns to Ottawa for his S.24
application for the return of his pot too. Busy day.

--
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

JCT: Rudy Seegobin, another sick person put through Alan
Young's Hitzig prosecution ringer, was in Ottawa court
Friday morning May 4 trying to have his 2+ ounces of
marijuana medicine returned to him after the possession
charge against him had been stayed once he had received his
Health Canada exemption.

The Crown, of course, is resisting. Though he's sick enough
to have the charges dropped from the time of the offence,
they won't give him back his marijuana from the time of the
offence.

So, I prepared a short written representation for him:

No: __________
                   ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
                        RUDY SEEGOBIN
                                                    Applicant

                    HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
                                                   Respondent

             WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR A S.24 ORDER

1. I was charged in Ottawa with possession of marijuana and
in Perth with cultivation and possession of marijuana.
All charges have been stayed though I did not have a
"ministry-granted exemption" at the time of the arrest after
I claimed a court-granted exemption like another Ontario
case, that of Derek Francisco, based upon:
A) the Hitzig decision;
B) the Krieger decision;
C) the Selkirk decision.

A) The Hitzig Decision

2. The Court of Appeal for Ontario in Hitzig v. HMQ ruled:
"[170] There will immediately be a constitutionally valid
exemption in effect and the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 of
the CDSA will immediately be constitutionally valid and of
full force and effect. In R. v. Parker, supra, this court
declared the prohibition invalid as of July 31, 2001 if by
that date the Government had not enacted a constitutionally
sound medical exemption. Our decision in this case confirms
that it did not do so. Hence the marihuana prohibition in s.
4 has been of no force or effect since July 31, 2001. Since
the July 8, 2003 regulation did not address the eligibility
deficiency, that alone could not have cured the problem.
However, our order has the result of constitutionalizing the
medical exemption created by the Government. As a result,
the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 is no longer inconsistent
with the provisions of the Constitution. Although Parliament
may subsequently choose to change it, that prohibition is
now no longer invalid, but is of full force and effect.
Those who establish medical need are simply exempted from
it."

3. Those who establish medical need are exempted from the
possession prohibition by the courts if not the Ministry of
Health; at the time of the offence!

4. The best way to establish medical need is to qualify for
an exemption from the Ministry of Health. I have since
established my medical need for the herb by qualifying for
an exemption from Health Canada.

5. But a person with true medical need doesn't have to have
a ministry exemption at the time of the arrest, he only
needs to have true medical need for a court-granted Hitzig
exemption to be then due at the time of the offence!

6. The first Canadian to receive a Hitzig court-granted
exemption for the time of arrest when not under ministry
exemption is Derek Francisco who was charged with
cultivation, then qualified for an exemption, then had the
charges stayed and a Section 24 Order by Justice Rhys-Morgan
for the return of the controlled substance though he did not
have a ministry exemption at the time of the offence, only a
Hitzig "prove medical need" court-granted exemption. A sick
person doesn't need to establish he possesses a Health
Canada permit at the time of the offence, a sick person only
needs to establish medical need.

B) Krieger

7. I sought an order quashing all my charges relating to
marihuana under s. 7(1) and 5(2) of the CDSA as unknown to
law on the grounds Parliament has not re-enacted the s.7
cultivation (and by implication s.4 possession) prohibitions
since they were struck down by the Alberta Court of Appeal
in R. v Krieger on December 4, 2002.

8. Acton J. of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that
section 7.(1) of the CDSA, which underpins all other
marihuana prohibitions in the CDSA, violated rights to
liberty and security of the person as guaranteed by section
7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. She therefore
struck down s.7(1) to the extent that it dealt with the
production of cannabis marihuana. The Alberta Court of
Appeal dismissed the Crown appeal on Dec 4 2002 and the
Crown's application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court
of Canada was dismissed on Dec 23 2003. Parliament has never
re-enacted the Section 7(1) prohibition on cultivation of
marijuana since it became of no force and effect on Feb 3
2003. Because I was as legitimately sick as Krieger, I
wanted a court-granted constitutional exemption for the
charges at the time of the offence too.

C) The Selkirk decision

9. In his Sep 26 2005 decision, Judge Selkirk game me a
conditional discharge with 1 year probation and the
condition not to consume marijuana in front of children in
tacit understanding of my medical need.

Dated at Ottawa on May 4 2007
Rudy Seegobin

JCT: If he had gotten his medicine back, a la Francisco, it
would have helped in Terry Parker's bid to get his pot back
after it had been seized by Canada Post. Very many people
sending their pot by Canada Post these days?

Unfortunately, the Crown said that Derek hadn't provided him
with a chance to study any materials so the judge ordered
Rudy to provide the background documentation, (Krieger,
Hitzig, Selkirk decisions) and argument, some time for the
Crown to respond and they'll all be back on June 28 2007.


--
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

JCT: Pierre Drouin and Real Martin are using the Krieger
Section 7 invalidation to argue their Section 7 charges are
no longer known to law. I'm using it to argue my Section
5(2) "possession for the purpose of trafficking" charge is
too.

1) "Krieger" motion to prohibit prosecution
-------------------------------------------

File Number: #
Appeal Court No: 44587
                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
       (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO)

BETWEEN:
                        John C. Turmel

                                                    Applicant
                                          Appellant in appeal
                             and
                    Her Majesty The Queen
                                                   Respondent
                                         Respondent in appeal

          NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
                  JOHN C. TURMEL, APPLICANT
        (Pursuant to S.59(4) of the Supreme Court Act)

TAKE NOTICE that Applicant John Turmel hereby applies for
leave to appeal to the Court in forma pauperis pursuant to
Section 59(4) of the Supreme Court Act from the judgment of
Justices Labrosse, Sharpe and Blair of the Court of Appeal
for Ontario C44587 made Feb 23 2007 dismissing the appeal
against the Nov 10 2005 refusal by MacLeod J. to prohibit
prosecution under CDSA Section 5(2).

AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that this application for leave is
made on the grounds that the R. v. Krieger decision
invalidating the CDSA Section 7(1) prohibition on
cultivation of marijuana and the Parker decision
invalidating the S.4(1) prohibition on possession were never
re-enacted by Parliament since their repeal.
Dated at Brantford on Apr 23 2007.
For the Applicant:
John C. Turmel, B. Eng.


                    APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM
                    JOHN TURMEL, APPLICANT
     (Pursuant to Section 59(4) of the Supreme Court Act)

PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS:

1. Section 4 of the CDSA says it is illegal to possess
anything on Schedule II of banned substances. Schedule II
has "marijuana" on the list. When the marijuana prohibition
in s.4 of the CDSA became invalid after July 31 2001,
without adding the words "except for marijuana" in Section
4, the only way left to effect the repeal of the prohibition
in Section 4 was the deletion of "marijuana" from Schedule
II of banned substances.

2. On Oct 7 2003, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in an
appeal of the May 20 2003 ruling of Aitken J. dismissing an
application to prohibit prosecution as no longer known to
law on the basis of the Parker invalidation of the
possession prohibition in S.4(1):
[1] On May 14, 2003 Mr. Turmel was charged with possession
of marihuana for the purposes of trafficking pursuant to s.
5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996,
c.19 (the CDSA).
[2] On May 26, 2003 Mr. Turmel brought a motion in the
Superior Court of Justice seeking in effect to have this
charge stayed. Aitken J. dismissed the motion and Mr. Turmel
now appeals from her order.
[3] He makes only one argument. It is founded on the order
made by this court in R. v. Parker (2000), 146 C.C.C. (3d)
193 declaring the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 of the CDSA
to be invalid and suspending the declaration for 12 months.
Mr. Turmel says that since s. 4 prohibits possession of any
substance included in, inter alia Schedule II (which lists
marihuana) this court's declaration can only be effected
(now that the 12 months has passed) by deleting marihuana
from Schedule II. He argues that this must remove marihuana
from Schedule II for all purposes. Section 5(2), like s. 4,
relies on the listing of marihuana in Schedule II to create
the charge of possession of marihuana for the purposes of
trafficking. Mr. Turmel says that the Parker declaration
means that there was no such charge on May 26, 2003, since
it deletes marihuana from Schedule II.
[4] While there are questions about whether this motion was
properly brought, and whether the Superior Court had
jurisdiction to hear it, we prefer to deal with this appeal
by addressing directly the argument made by Mr. Turmel.
[5] It is based on a fundamental misconception. A
declaration does not delete a provision from a statute.
Pursuant to s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 its
effect is to render the provision of no force or effect to
the extent of its inconsistency with the provisions of the
Constitution.
[6] The declaration of invalidity made by this court in
Parker8 supra, does not delete marihuana from Schedule II of
the CDSA. It simply declares that the reference to marihuana
in Schedule II is of no force or effect for the purposes of
the possession charge in s. 4 of the CDSA. The declaration
does not extend to any other section of the CDSA. In
particular, it does not diminish the effect of the listing
of marihuana in Schedule II for the purposes of s. 5(2) of
the CDSA. As a result, the charge of possession of marihuana
for the purposes of trafficking existed on May 26, 2003.
[7] Thus Aitken J. was correct to dismiss the appellant's
argument and we would dismiss his appeal.

3. On Dec 23 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the
Crown application for leave to appeal the decision of the
Alberta Court of Appeal that dismissed the Crown's appeal
against a Dec 11 2000 decision of Acton J. which struck down
the cultivation prohibition in S.7(1) so that, pursuant to
S.2(2) of the Interpretation Act, it is deemed repealed.
With the Applicant charged after the S.4(1) possession
prohibition had been repealed on in 2001 and after the
S.7(1) cultivation prohibition had been repealed in 2003, it
is even more arguable that with no changes in the Criminal
Code to reflect both invalidations, the effect of the
invalidation would have been to delete "marijuana" from the
schedule of banned substances.

4. On Nov 28 2005, MacLeod J. dismissed an application to
prohibit prosecution as no longer known to law on the basis
of the 2001 Parker invalidation of the possession
prohibition in S.4(1) and the 2003 Krieger invalidation of
the cultivation prohibition in S.7(1).

5. On Jun 12 2006, Ontario Court of Appeal Chief Justice Roy
McMurtry denied Appellant's request for a panel of 5 judges
necessary to overturn the 3-judge Aitken ruling that the
legislation need not be re-written to reflect the
invalidations when judges can remember which written laws
aren't valid,
App. 1 Ont.C.A. McMurtry J. refuses 5 judge panel..Jun 12/06

7. On Feb 23 2007, the 3-judge Ontario Court of Appeal panel
dismissed the appeal saying it was bound by the earlier 3-
judge Aitken ruling that established S.5(2) is known to law.
App.1 Ont.C.A. McMurtry J. refuses 5 judge panel 2006 Jun 12

PART II - ISSUES

8. Did the Chief Justice err in not providing the 5-judge
panel necessary to overrule the earlier 3-judge decision?

9. When legislation is struck down by the courts, must the
government re-print the legislation to effect the repeal or
count on the courts to remember where the written law no
longer applies?

PART III - ARGUMENT

10. When the Chief Justice refused to provide a panel that
was not bound by the earlier 3-judge panel's decision, the
appeal had no chance of success and should be adjudicated.

11. The invalidation of the prohibition on marijuana
cultivation in S.7(1) by the Alberta Court of Appeal in R.
v. Krieger in 2003 added to the already invalidated
prohibition on marijuana possession in the S.4(1) by the
Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Parker in 2001 also
invalidated the prohibitions in all other related sections.



































12. S.4(1) says it is an offence to possess anything on
"Schedule II of banned substances." S.7(1) says it is an
offence to cultivate anything on "Schedule II of banned
substances." Applicant's S.5(2) says it is an offence to
possess for the purpose of trafficking anything on the
"Schedule II of banned substances."

13. If the prohibition on the possession of marijuana became
invalid in 2001, how was that reflected in the Criminal Code
when the government didn't change anything? Since the
Government did not enact the words "except for marijuana" in
S.4(1)'s prohibition of possession, the only way left to
effect the repeal of the prohibition was the deletion of
"marijuana" from Schedule II of banned substances.

14. Leaving repealed legislation on the books and counting
on the judiciary to remember, or the bar to remind the
judiciary to remember when the written word does not apply,
has resulted in the third biggest foul-up in Canadian legal
history , the staying of 4000 improper prosecutions
under the repealed S.4(1) statute in Dec 2003 when the Court
of Appeal found the marijuana prohibition in s.4 of the CDSA
to be invalid two years after the fact.

15. Further, the judiciary and the bar forgot while 100,000
bogus convictions were registered and not expunged. This is
the second biggest foul-up in Canadian legal history because
the court has ruled that there is no need to insist on a
strict written word and counts on judges having unfailing
memories in keeping up with the latest developments in
jurisprudence. Which, in this case, they obviously failed to
do. This explains why the strict interpretation of criminal
statutes with no reliance on judicial memory has always been
previously insisted upon.

16. And the biggest foul-up in Canadian legal history are
the 200,000 bogus prosecutions since the Krieger
invalidation of the cultivation and possession offences due
to the Crown's assertion that the Crown's Appellant's stay
remains in force after the Crown lost it's Appellant status.
All bogus prosecutions should be corrected.

PART IV - ORDER SOUGHT

11. Applicant seeks leave to appeal the Oct 7 2003 and Feb
23 2007 judgments of the Ontario Court of Appeal for an
Order declaring that the word "marijuana" had to have been
deleted from Schedule II for all sections of the CDSA.

PART V - SUBMISSIONS ON COSTS

13. Applicant had no submissions on costs.

PART VI - TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

14. None.

PART VII - DOCUMENTS TO BE USED

Ont.C.A. McMurtry J. refuses 5 judge panel Par.5
Dated at Brantford on Apr 23 2007
The Appellant:  John C. Turmel, B. Eng.,

JCT: So the last Supreme Court challenge to the "judges will
remember which written laws don't count" that was dismissed
by Justice Binnie as "abandoned" for getting one signed
document in late, gets heard again anyway since that is the
decision this court had no power to overrule.
---

2) Certiorari "no jurisdiction without jury"
-----------------------------------------------

File Number: #
Appeal Court No: 44588
                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
       (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO)
BETWEEN:
                        John C. Turmel
                                                    Applicant
                                          Appellant in appeal
                             and
                    Her Majesty The Queen
                                                   Respondent
                                         Respondent in appeal

          NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
                  JOHN C. TURMEL, APPLICANT
        (Pursuant to S.59(4) of the Supreme Court Act)

TAKE NOTICE that Applicant John Turmel hereby applies for
leave to appeal to the Court in forma pauperis pursuant to
Section 59(4) of the Supreme Court Act from the judgment of
Justices Labrosse, Sharpe and Blair of the Court of Appeal
for Ontario C44588 made Feb 23 2007 dismissing the appeal
against the Nov 28 2005 judgment of Justice MacLeod for an
Order of Certiorari declaring that the Provincial Court has
no jurisdiction to adjudicate the trial of an accused found
to be in possession of more than 3KG without first putting
the accused to an election.
Dated at Brantford on Monday April 23 2007.
John C. Turmel, B. Eng.

                    APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM
                    JOHN TURMEL, APPLICANT
     (Pursuant to Section 59(4) of the Supreme Court Act)

PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS:

1. The indictment contains a deliberate lie to deny accused
an election which the courts have refused to correct.

2. On May 14 2003, Applicant was arrested on Parliament Hill
with 3.3 Kilograms of marijuana to remain above the
jurisdiction of single judges who may only try matters
dealing with less than 3Kg without an election.

3. The Crown charged Applicant with possession of less than
3KG to deny a jury trial.

4. On April 19, 2005, Appellant applied to Wright J. for an
Order compelling the Crown to offer Appellant an election
since the evidence showed the amount of the matter on the
Information was in error. Wright J. dismissed the challenge
to his court's jurisdiction.
App.2: Transcript of Wright J. hearing

5. On December 11 2005, an application to MacLeod J. for
certiorari to remove the case from the court without
jurisdiction to the Superior Court with jurisdiction over
amounts in excess of 3Kg was heard and dismissed.
App.3: Transcript of MacLeod J. hearing

6. The decision in R. v. Sewell 2003 SKCA 52 was presented
to explain the criteria for an election on the basis of the
amount of substance in the matter.
App.1 R. v. Sewell 2003 SKCA 52

7. On Feb 23 2007, an appeal was dismissed by the Ontario
Court of Appeal on the grounds that once the judge had
forged ahead with the charges, the challenge to the judge's
jurisdiction became moot.

PART II - ISSUES

8. Does Provincial Court have jurisdiction over an accused
who was found to be in possession of more than 3Kg of
marijuana without an election.

9. Does a judge gain jurisdiction by forging ahead despite a
challenge to the jurisdiction.

PART III - ARGUMENTS

10. The Criminal Code says that Provincial Court has no
jurisdiction over an accused who is in possession of more
than 3Kg of marijuana without an election. Keeping a false
allegation of possession of less than 3Kg which is not based
upon the evidence of 3.3Kg is an abuse of the court's
process.

11. Had the Court of Appeal ruled that the judge had no
jurisdiction, the lower court decision would have been
mooted but a lower court decision does not mooten a higher
court challenge to its jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal got
its mooting backward.

PART IV - ORDER SOUGHT

12. Appellant seeks leave to appeal for an Order declaring
that Applicant should have been given an election as to
whether to be tried by judge alone or by judge and jury and
for any other relief this court may deem appropriate.

PART V - SUBMISSIONS ON COSTS

13. Applicant had no submissions on costs.

PART VI - TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
R. v. Sewell 2003 SKCA 52 Par.6
R. v. Turmel Transcript of Wright J. hearing Par.4
R. v. Turmel Transcript of MacLeod J. Par.5

PART VII - DOCUMENTS TO BE USED
- R. v. Sewell 2003 SKCA 52
- R. v. Turmel Transcript of Wright J. hearing
- R. v. Turmel Transcript of MacLeod J.

Dated at Brantford on Apr 23 2007
The Appellant:  John C. Turmel, B. Eng.,
---

3) No constitutional motion or defence allowed
----------------------------------------------

File Number: #
Appeal Court No: 45295
                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
       (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO)
BETWEEN:
                        John C. Turmel
                                                    Applicant
                                          Appellant in appeal
                             and
                    Her Majesty The Queen
                                                   Respondent
                                         Respondent in appeal

          NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
                  JOHN C. TURMEL, APPLICANT
        (Pursuant to S.59(4) of the Supreme Court Act)

TAKE NOTICE that Applicant John Turmel hereby applies for
leave to appeal to the Court in forma pauperis pursuant to
Section 59(4) of the Supreme Court Act from the judgment of
Justices Labrosse, Sharpe and Blair of the Court of Appeal
for Ontario C45295 made Feb 23 2007 dismissing the appeal
against the March 10 2006 conviction by Belanger J. under
Section 5(2) of the CDSA on the grounds the Applicant's
rights under Section 7 of the Charter were violated by
prohibition of marijuana for medical preventative purposes
or that the defences of necessity and other intent should
have been permitted.
Dated at Brantford on Monday April 23 2007.
John C. Turmel, B. Eng.

                    APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM
                  JOHN C. TURMEL, APPLICANT
        (Pursuant to S.59(4) of the Supreme Court Act)

1. On May 14 2003, after the prohibition on possession of
marijuana in S.4 of the CDSA had been invalidated by the
Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Parker had taken effect
after July 31 2001 and before revalidation of the possession
prohibition by the Hitzig Court of Appeal had taken effect
some time after 10am on Oct 7 2003, Appellant was arrested
with "more than 3 kilograms of marijuana" (3.277Kg) and
convicted of possession of "less than 3Kg of marijuana for
the purpose of trafficking" to the Prime Minister, Justice
Minister, Supreme Court of Canada, Superior Court of
Ontario, R.C.M.P. and O.P.P.

2. Before pleading, the accused filed a S.601 "pre-plea"
motion to quash charges on the grounds the Section 4
possession and Section 7 cultivation offences in the
"Controlled Drugs and Substances Act" ("CDSA") were never
re-enacted after their respective repeals by the Parker
Court of Appeal of Ontario after Jul 31 2001 and by the
Krieger Court of Appeal of Alberta after Feb 2 2003 using
the same arguments as detailed the application for leave to
appeal for prohibition of S.7 charges to the Supreme Court
by Pierre Drouin.
3. Judge Belanger reserved his decision on the pre-plea
application to quash the charges to March 10 2006 but
insisted on starting the trial before ruling on whether
there would even be a trial.

4. The accused refused to plead until the motion to quash
had been dealt with standing mute. The judge ordered that a
"not guilty" plea be entered and permitted the Crown to
present its evidence then adjourned until March 10 2006.

5. On March 10 2006, Judge Belanger handed down his prepared
written judgment dismissing the pre-plea application to
quash and then handing down a conviction without allowing
for a "pre-trial" constitutional challenge on the grounds
appellant's right to life is infringed by denial of this
miraculous herb for preventative purposes, nor for any
defence to be presented or summations heard.

6. On March 29 2006, Applicant was sentenced to a $1000
fine, 100 hours of community service and the maximum 3 years
probation.

7. On Feb 23 2007, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds
the Court of Appeal in 2003 ruled that the charges under
S.5(2) were not unknown to law. The Court ruled that my
being given the disjointed opportunity to present written
arguments (with respect to the S.601 application, not the
constitutional challenge), the decision of the trial judge
not to hear the Charter issue was properly exercised.

PART II - QUESTIONS IN ISSUE

7. Is the Section 5(2) prohibition still known to law?

8. Was it correct for the judge to refuse to hear the
Charter challenge for preventative medical use after
permitting a disjointed trial to proceed before the motion
to quash had been dealt with?

9. Should the judge have permitted the accused to raise the
defence of necessity or the defence of no intent to traffic,
only an intent to permit inspection?

PART III - STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT

10.  The Hitzig Court of Appeal could not resurrect,
revalidate, bring penal laws back to life and the charge
should have been quashed as unknown to law due to the Parker
invalidation of the Section 4(1) possession offence and the
Krieger invalidation of the S.7(1) cultivation offence. If
cultivation and possession are no longer known to law,
intent to traffic can no longer be imputed due to mere
possesion.

11. Prohibition of cannabis medication used for prevention
of disease is just as much a violation of the Applicant's
Charter right to health as for those for whom it is
alleviation or cure of actual disease. Such a Charter
challenge is of national importance and should have been
permitted, especially given the disjointed nature of the
proceeding.

12. The judge had no right to jump to the conclusion that
because the accused quipped "I'm in big trouble" that it was
"too big" trouble and that that no defence was going to be
presented. The accused should also have been permitted the
chance to raise the defence of necessity and the defence of
"other intent" than to traffic.

PART IV - ORDER SOUGHT

13. Appellant seeks leave to appeal the decision of the
Court of Appeal to overturn the conviction and declare that
applicant's rights pursuant to Section S.7 of the Charter
have been infringed by the prohibition of the medical use of
marijuana for prevention of illness.

PART V - SUBMISSIONS ON COSTS

14. Applicant had no submissions on costs.

PART VI - TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
No authorites

PART VII - DOCUMENTS TO BE USED
No documents to be used.

Dated at Brantford on Apr 23 2007
The Appellant:   John C. Turmel, B. Eng.,


--
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

JCT: Here is Pierre's Memorandum for his application for
leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

File Number:
Appeal Court No: C44683
                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
       (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO)
BETWEEN:
                        Pierre Drouin
                                          Applicant for leave
                                          Appellant in appeal
                             and
                    Her Majesty The Queen
                                         Respondent for leave
                                         Respondent in appeal

          NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
                   PIERRE DROUIN, APPLICANT
     (Pursuant to Section 59(4) of the Supreme Court Act)

TAKE NOTICE that Applicant Pierre Drouin hereby applies for
leave to appeal to the Court in forma pauperis pursuant to
Section 59(4) of the Supreme Court Act from the judgment of
Justices Labrosse, Sharpe and Blair of the Court of Appeal
for Ontario C44683 made Feb 23 2007 and for an Order
prohibiting prosecution under CDSA Sections 7(1) and 4(1)
that have been repealed.

AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that this application for leave is
made on the grounds that the R. v. Krieger decision
invalidated the CDSA Section 7(1) and section 4(1)
prohibitions against cultivation and possession of marijuana
and were never re-enacted by Parliament since Feb 2 2003.
Dated at Jogues Ontario on Apr 17 2007
Applicant: Pierre Drouin

                   APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM
                   PIERRE DROUIN, APPLICANT
     (Pursuant to Section 59(4) of the Supreme Court Act)

PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS:
----------------------------

1. On July 31 2000 in R. v. Parker, on a Crown appeal from
the Dec 10 1997 decision of Ontario Provincial Judge
Sheppard staying cultivation and possession of marijuana
charges against Terrance Parker and reading in exemptions
for people with medical need, Ontario Court of Appeal
Justices Rosenberg, Catzman and Charron instead Ordered "the
marijuana prohibition in s.4 of the CDSA to be invalid" but
suspended its ruling while granting Parker a constitutional
exemption for 1 year. The court further wrote they would
have invalidated the cultivation prohibition had the Crown
also appealed Parker's cultivation exemption. Though Parker
was not deprived of his rights, 2400 to 4600 Canadian
epileptics who were not exempted with him suffered needless
deprivation of life in that year and every year since then.
App.1: 2000 Jul 31 Parker Ont.C.A. Order

2. On Dec. 11 2000 in R. v. Krieger, Alberta Justice Acton
took care of that omission by following the Parker ruling
and declaring the prohibition on cultivation of marijuana in
s.7(1) of the CDSA, and by implication possession in s.4(1),
to be invalid. She suspended her ruling for 1 year.

3. On Jul 30 2001, one day before the expiry of the
suspension of the Parker declaration of invalidity, Health
Canada issued the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations
(MMAR) which the Court of Appeal ruled in 2003 had failed to
comply with the Parker Court's Order.

4. On Aug 1 2001, Parker's exemption expired without the
MMAR having provided the necessary medical access to comply
with the Parker court's ruling thus causing the invalidation
of the s.4(1) prohibition after 1 year on Terry Parker Day
Aug. 1 2001.

5. On Nov 28 2003, upon a motion by the Appellant Crown
Attorney Scott Couper for an Order staying Acton's order in
Krieger "until the appeal or until further order of the
Alberta Court of Appeal," Justice O'Leary stayed the
invalidation of S.7(1) prohibition "until further order of
the court."

6. On Dec 4 2002, Alberta Court of Appeal Justices Wittman,
Costigan, and LoVecchio Order dismissed the Crown's appeal:
"[1] The Respondent was charged with possession of marihuana
for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the
CDSA and unlawful production of marihuana contrary to s.
7(1) of the Act.
[2] The Crown appeals a voir dire ruling which struck down
s. 7(1) and also appeals the Respondent's acquittal by a
jury of the s. 5(2) charge.
[..6] Nor are we satisfied that the trial judge imposed a
positive obligation on the Crown to ensure a supply. The
trial judge struck s. 7(1). Her order imposed no obligation.
[7] Therefore, we dismiss the appeal as it relates to the
voir dire ruling.
App.2 Krieger Court of Appeal of Alberta Judgment

7. The Calgary Herald and Sun reports misrepresented the
striking down of the S.7 and S.4 prohibitions for all
Canadians as a personal exemption victory for Krieger, a
total inversion of the truth. Calgary Herald reporter Daryl
Slade wrote:
"Krieger's lawyer, Adriano Iovinelli, said outside court it
was an important decision that permits his client to
continue to cultivate and use marijuana for his own use to
alleviate chronic pain caused by multiple sclerosis.
Iovinelli said, as it stands, it is status quo on Krieger's
charter exemption. But he suggested that would not apply to
the general public... Alberta Court of Appeal Justice Willis
O'Leary last year extended that stay indefinitely, until
there is an application to the courts to remove it."
App.3: 2002 Dec 05 Calgary Herald Krieger article
App.4: 2002 Dec 05 Calgary Sun Krieger article

8. Once the Court of Appeal for Alberta dismissed the
Crown's appeal and became functus officio, its Final Order
became the "further Order" disposing of the Appellant's stay
granted by O'Leary J.A. The only way to stay the Acton
invalidation pending leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of
Canada was pursuant to Section 65.1(1) of the Supreme Court
of Canada Act which reads:
"Stay of execution -- application for leave to appeal
65.1 (1) The Court, the court appealed from or a judge of
either of those courts may, on the request of the party who
has served and filed a notice of application for leave to
appeal, order that proceedings be stayed with respect to the
judgment from which leave to appeal is being sought, on the
terms deemed appropriate."

9. By Feb 2 2003, the 60th day after the Crown's appeal had
been dismissed by the Alberta Court of Appeal, no
application for leave to appeal was filed in the Supreme
Court by the Crown and no stay had been obtained pursuant to
S.65 of the Supreme Court Act to further stay Acton's
invalidation of the S.7 cultivation prohibition. So just as
the S.4(1) possession prohibition had become invalid on Aug.
1 2001, so too, with no S.65 stay on Acton J.'s decision,
the S.7(1) cultivation prohibition in the CDSA became
invalid on Feb 3 2003.

10. On March 25 2003, the Supreme Court granted an extension
of time for the Crown to file an application for leave to
appeal the Krieger invalidation that took place on Feb 2.

11. On May 14 2003, the day before the Minister of Justice
was to introduce new legislation on re-criminalizing the
possession and cultivation of marijuana, John Turmel was
charged at the doors of the House of Commons with possession
of 3.3Kg of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking to the
Prime Minister, Justice Minister, Supreme Court and others
to demonstrate that the prohibitions were no longer valid in
Canada.

12. On May 15 2003, the Chretien Government held back the
marijuana bill so the S.4 and S.7 prohibitions were never
re-enacted after being repealed by the Ontario Court of
Appeal in Parker on Aug 1 2001 and the Alberta Court of
Appeal in Krieger on Feb 3 2003.
App.5: 2003 May 14 Ottawa holds back marijuana bill

13. In the May 16 2003 Crown Memorandum to the Supreme Court
of Canada, S. David Frankel pleaded for leave to appeal
because:
"[11] The Court of Appeal did not deal with O'Leary's order.
Accordingly, it remains an offence to grow marihuana in
Alberta, unless a person has obtained a ministerial or
judicial exemption. If the suspension order were to be
vacated, then there would be no prohibition whatsoever on
the cultivation of marihuana in the province."
[57] As matters now stand S.7(1) has been declared of no
force and effect by the highest court in Alberta. An
application to vacate O'Leary's Order could be brought at
any time. If the suspension order were vacated, then the
cultivation of marijuana would not be an offence in
Alberta."
App.6: 2003 May 16 Krieger Crown Frankel Memorandum

14. On Jun 11 2003, Applicant Pierre Drouin was charged
under S.7(1) with production of marihuana and S.5(2) with
possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking.

15. On Oct 06 2003, in another application to quash
marijuana charges as unknown to law in R. v. Kurtiss Lee
Masse, Judge Chen reasoned that:
"S.52(1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of
Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions
of the constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency,
of no force and effect."

16. He pointed out S.2(2) of the Interpretation Act reads:
"For the purposes of this Act, an enactment that has
expired, lapsed, or otherwise ceased to have effect is
deemed to have been repealed."

17. Judge Chen finally concluded:
"[66].. If I am wrong in this, and it is possible for
regulations addressing the concerns raised in Parker to halt
the operation of the declaration of s.4's invalidity, then I
agree with the decision in Hitzig that the MMAR were
inadequate for this purpose because, as long as there is no
legal supply of marihuana for persons requiring it for
medical use, the infringement on s. 7 Charter rights
identified in Parker has not been cured. The enactment of
the Marijuana Exemption (Food and Drugs Act) Regulations on
July 8, 2003 may or may not address the concerns raised in
Hitzig but came too late to have any effect on the
declaration of invalidity in Parker. July 31, 2001 had, by
that time, already come and gone, and the legislation had
already been rendered invalid. Once invalid, it became a
nullity and could not be resuscitated; it could only be re-
enacted.
[67] It follows therefore, that there is no offence known to
law at this time for simple possession of marihuana. The
application is allowed.
App.7 2003 Oct 6 Masse B.C. Prov. Crt (Chen J.)

18. If the S.4(1) possession prohibition, once invalidated
on Aug. 1 2001 by the Parker Court could only be re-enacted,
not resuscitated, so too, the S.7(1) cultivation
prohibition, once invalidated on Feb 2 2003 by the Krieger
Court, could only be re-enacted, not resuscitated. And
neither S.4(1) nor S.7(1) prohibitions on possession and
cultivation have ever been re-enacted since their repeal.

19. On Oct 7 2003, the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. J.P.
ruled "the MMAR did not create a constitutionally acceptable
medical exemption... as of that date, the offence of
possession of marijuana in s.4 of the CDSA was of no force
and effect. The respondent could not be prosecuted."

20. On Dec 8 2003, the Crown stayed 4000 S.4(1) possession
charges to reflect the Parker invalidation since Aug 1 2001
but did nothing about my Jun 11 2003 S.7(1) cultivation
charge to reflect the Krieger invalidation since Feb 3 2003.
App.8: 2003 Dec 08 Ottawa stays 4000 charges

21. On December 23 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada
Bulletin of Proceedings of the Krieger decision states:
"29569 HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. GRANT WAYNE KRIEGER
(Crim) (Alta.)
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Major and Fish JJ.
The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the
Court of Appeal of Alberta (Calgary), Numbers 01-00011-A and
01-00288-0A, dated March 18 2003, is dismissed."
App.9: Supreme Court of Canada Bulletin Dec 23 2003


23. The Supreme Court does not note any Appellant's stay of
Judge Acton's repeal of marihuana prohibition in CDSA S.7(1)
still extant after the Alberta Court of Appeal closed the
file and became functus officio. Again, did nothing about my
Jun 11 2003 S.7(1) cultivation charges that happened after
the Feb 3 2003 Krieger invalidation.

24. On Nov 2 2005, in a similar Krieger-based application
for prohibition of prosecution for cultivation in R. v.
Cornelssen in Alberta, the Crown Memorandum stated:
"3. Proof that the suspension of the declaration of
invalidity of s.7(1) was vacated.
The Applicant bears the burden of proof that the Order of
O'Leary J.A. was vacated. He has filed no evidence
whatsoever which proves the existence of an Order that
vacates the November 26 2001 Order of O'Leary J.A.
Attached as Tabs 1 and 2 are the Affidavits of Adriano
Iovinelli, Counsel for Grant Wayne Krieger and Scott Couper,
Counsel for the Attorney General of Canada, respectively,
who were counsel appearing for the litigants at the
rendering of the March 18 2003 judgment in R. v. Krieger,
supra (above). Both depose that after the rendering of the
judgment from the bench, Mr. Iovinelli applied to vacate the
November 28 2001 Order of O'Leary J.A. which, inter alia,
stayed the Order of Acton J. striking down s.7(1) of the
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
Both counsel depose that the Court of Appeal dismissed Mr.
Iovinelli's application and held further that such an
application could only be brought in the context of a full
hearing with evidence being called.
No such application was ever made. Consequently, the
suspension of Acton J.'s Order is still in effect.
For the reasons indicated by the Deputy Registrar of the
Court of Appeal at Tab 3, a transcript of those proceedings
is not available....
6. Application of stare decisis re: Krieger, supra, to the
facts before this Honourable Court.
With respect to the Applicant's argument of stare decisis,
the rule applies only when the same factual conditions
apply. The MMAR and all of its amendments were not present
when Krieger, supra, was decided. Respectfully, this Court
is bound, first, by the Order of O'Leary J.A. which stayed
the declaration of invalidity of Acton J. and, second, by
the dismissal of the application to vacate O'Leary J.A.'s
Order by the Court of Appeal on March 18 2003. The Supreme
Court of Canada merely refused leave to appeal to the Crown
and did not deal with the stay on the declaration of
invalidity as evidenced in their one sentence judgment."
App.10: 2005 Nov 02 R. v. Cornelssen Crown Memo
26. It is true that Krieger counsel did swear in his Nov 1
affidavit:
"3. On March 18 2003, a three-member panel of the Alberta
Court of Appeal upheld the decision of Acton J. striking
down s.7(1) of the CDSA by delivering a Memorandum of
Judgment from the bench. A copy of that Memorandum of
Judgment is attached hereto as Exhibit B. As the Memorandum
of Judgment did not deal with the outstanding suspension of
the declaration of invalidity, I made an application at the
conclusion of judgment to have the Order of O'Leary J.
vacated. The Court of Appeal dismissed my application. In
doing so, the Court held that an application to vacate that
Order would require a full hearing with the calling of
evidence.
4. At no time did I  make such an application or conduct
such a hearing on behalf of my client. Consequently, the
Order of O'Leary J. staying the declaration of invalidity
and allowing my client his personal exemption to produce
cannabis marihuana for his own medicinal purposes is still
in effect... Adriano Iovinelli"

27. Since the Court of Appeal was functus officio once it
had issued it's final Order stripping the Crown of it's
appellant's status, it seems incredible that the Court would
have suggested that a motion which cannot be made should be
made for a full hearing with the calling of evidence." It is
so incredible that Crown Attorney Scott Couper refused to go
along with the lie and told the truth. In his Oct 28 2005
affidavit, Crown Scott Couper swore:
"3. On March 18 2003, a three-member panel of the Alberta
Court of Appeal upheld the decision of Acton J. striking
down s.7(1) of the CDSA by delivering a Memorandum of
Judgment from the bench. A copy of that Memorandum of
Judgment is attached hereto as Exhibit B. At the conclusion
of the judgment, counsel for Krieger applied to have the
Order of O'Leary J. vacated. The Court of Appeal declined to
entertain the application."

28. On Nov 16 2005, Scott Couper testified in R. v.
Cornelssen that on December 4 2002, upon having the Crown's
appeal against the decision of Acton J. to invalidate the
s.7(1) prohibition dismissed, he was going to ask for a
S.65.1(1) Supreme Court stay of Acton's invalidation pending
their application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court
of Canada but then deterred by Defence counsel Adriano
Iovinelli asking the Court of Appeal to have the O'Leary
stay lifted. Even though the court declined to entertain the
request to lift a stay which had just lapsed, the Crown then
did not ask for its own legitimate stay pursuant to
S.65.1(1) of the Supreme Court of Canada Act.

29. Mr. Couper would not swear that the Court of appeal had
entertained and dismissed the application to lift a stay
that had just lapsed with the Final Order. He testified the
Court had actually properly refused to entertain the
illegitimate motion once the file had been closed. So the
Crown's argument the Court of Appeal's dismissal of the
application to vacate O'Leary J.A.'s Order is somehow
binding cannot be so because no such application was nor
could ever be entertained by a functus officio court.

30. On Nov 14 2005, Pierre Drouin proved medical need
sufficiently to receive a Health Canada exemption to use 5
grams of marijuana per day and, pursuant to the Court of
Appeal's ruling, has established medical need and must
simply be exempted.

34. On Dec 5 2005, Superior Court Justice Nadeau in Cochrane
Ontario dismissed Pierre Drouin's application for
prohibition of prosecution.

35. On Feb 23 2007, Pierre Drouin's appeal was dismissed by
the Ontario Court of Appeal on the grounds that the
Appellant's O'Leary stay of Acton's invalidation of the S.7
cultivation prohibition continued after the Appellant was
longer the appellant until remedied by the MMAR.


PART II - QUESTIONS IN ISSUE

36. Did the invalidation by Acton J. in R. v. Krieger of the
Section 7(1) cultivation prohibition and by implication, the
Section 4(1) possession prohibition, take effect 60 days
after the Alberta Court of Appeal issued its Final Order
dismissing the Crown's appeal or does the Appellant's stay
still need to be vacated;

37. Did the MMAR comply with the Court's Order to remedy
Krieger's situation.



PART III - ARGUMENT

39. The proof Krieger counsel Iovinelli perjured himself
while Crown counsel Scott Couper told the truth is best
demonstrated by the very fabrication that the Court of
Appeal said an application to vacate O'Leary's Order would
require a full hearing with the calling of evidence to show
how the Government had complied with Acton's Order. That is
impossible because the Court of Appeal itself noted:
"Nor are we satisfied that the trial judge imposed a
positive obligation on the Crown."

39. Considering the court specifically pointed out no
obligations had been imposed by Acton, the Court could not
have said a full hearing with evidence was needed to deal
with the government's compliance with the Acton order which
demanded no compliance.

40. So, the Acton invalidations had to have taken effect on
Feb 3 2003 when the Court of Appeal when a Supreme Court
stay was not obtained. Of course, once the Court of Appeal
of Alberta became functus officio, O'Leary's stay lapsed
and, as Frankel warned, there was "no prohibition whatsoever
on the cultivation of marihuana in the province." And the
country.
PART IV -- ORDER SOUGHT:

16. Appellant seeks leave to appeal for an Order prohibiting
any prosecution of S.7(1) cultivation charge and declaring
that the Krieger invalidation of the prohibition in Section
7(1), and by implication in Section 4(1), of the CDSA took
effect on Feb 3 2003.

PART V - SUBMISSIONS ON COSTS

17. Applicant had no submissions on costs.

PART VI - TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cornelssen Alta.Q.B. Crown Memo...App.10: Nov 02 2005 Par.24

Krieger Ab.C.A. Memorandum on S.7 App.2: 2002 Dec 04 Par.6
Krieger Calgary Herald article....App.3: 2002 Dec 05 Par.7
Krieger Calgary Sun article.......App.4: 2002 Dec 05 Par.7
Krieger S.C.C. Crown Memorandum...App.6: 2003 May 16 Par.13
Krieger S.C.C. Bulletin...........App.9: 2003 Dec 23 Par.21

Masse B.C.P.C. Chen J.............App.7  2003 Oct 6 Par.17

Parker Ont.C.A. Order on CDSA S.4.App.1: 2000 Jul 31 Par.1
Parker Ottawa stays 4000..........App.8: 2003 Dec 08 Par.20

Turmel holds back marijuana bill..App.5: 2003 May 14 Par.12


PART VII - DOCUMENTS TO BE USED

Parker Ont.C.A. Order on CDSA S.4.App.1: 2000 Jul 31 Par.1
Krieger Ab.C.A. Memorandum on S.7 App.2: 2002 Dec 04 Par.6
Krieger Calgary Herald article....App.3: 2002 Dec 05 Par.7
Krieger Calgary Sun article.......App.4: 2002 Dec 05 Par.7
Turmel holds back marijuana bill..App.5: 2003 May 14 Par.12
Krieger S.C.C. Crown Memorandum...App.6: 2003 May 16 Par.13
Masse B.C.P.C. Chen J.............App.7  2003 Oct 6 Par.17
Parker Ottawa stays 4000..........App.8: 2003 Dec 08 Par.20
Krieger S.C.C. Bulletin...........App.9: 2003 Dec 23 Par.21
Cornelssen Alta.Q.B. Crown Memo...App.10: Nov 02 2005 Par.24

Dated at Jogues Ontario on Apr 17 2006.
Appicant
Pierre Drouin

JCT: His friend Real Martin filed his application too:

                    APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM
                    REAL MARTIN, APPLICANT
     (Pursuant to Section 59(4) of the Supreme Court Act)

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

1. On Jun 18 2003, Applicant Real Martin was charged with
possession of marihuana under S.4(1) of the CDSA and
production under S.7(1) of the CDSA. This was after the
Ontario Court of Appeal had ruled the prohibition on
possession in S.4(1) of the CDSA to be invalid on after July
31 2001 and after the Alberta Court of Appeal had ruled the
prohibition on cultivation in S.7(1) of the CDSA to be
invalid after Feb 2 2003.

2. On December 5, 2005, Justice Nadeau dismissed the
Applicant's application for prohibition of prosecution under
S.7(1) of the CDSA. The charge under section 4(1) of the
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act was withdrawn.

3. On Feb 23 2007, Real Martin's appeal was dismissed by the
Ontario Court of Appeal on the grounds that the Appellant's
stay of Acton's invalidation in R. v. Krieger of the S.7
cultivation prohibition by O'Leary continued after the
Appellant was longer the appellant until remedied by the
MMAR.

4. Appellant raised the same appeal issues as Pierre Drouin.

PART II - QUESTIONS IN ISSUE

5. Applicant Real Martin raises the same issues as those
raised in the application for leave to appeal the denial of
prohibition of prosecution under Section 7(1) of the CDSA by
fellow applicant Pierre Drouin.

PART III - ARGUMENTS

6. Applicant seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court upon
the same grounds as those used by Applicant Pierre Drouin in
seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

PART IV -- ORDER SOUGHT:

7. Appellant seeks leave to appeal for an Order prohibiting
any prosecution of S.7(1) cultivation charge and declaring
that the Krieger invalidation of the prohibition in Section
7(1), and by implication in Section 4(1), of the CDSA took
effect on Feb 3 2003.
Dated at Coppell Ontario on Apr 17 2007

Applicant:
Real Martin


--
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

JCT: S. David Frankel, leader of the Frankel gang
responsible for over 200,000 bogus prosecutions against
Canadians has received his reward:

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/news/ja/2007/doc_31983.html

>BRITISH COLUMBIA JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS ANNOUNCED

OTTAWA, March 2, 2007 -- The Honourable Rob Nicholson, P.C.,
Q.C., M.P. for Niagara Falls, Minister of Justice and
Attorney General of Canada, today announced the following
appointments:
The Honourable S. David Frankel, Q.C. , Senior General
Counsel, Public Prosecution Service of Canada in Vancouver,
is appointed judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
Mr. Justice Frankel received a Bachelor of Laws in 1973 and
a Bachelor of Science in 1970 from the University of British
Columbia and was admitted to the Bar of British Columbia in
1974. He articled with Guild, Yule & Company in Vancouver
and since 1974 has practised with the federal Department of
Justice developing an expertise in the area of Charter
litigation, criminal law and constitutional law.

JCT: Har har har. So the guy who said that the stay granted
to the Appellant Crown by Alberta Court of Appeal Justice
O'Leary continues to exist after the appeal has been
dismissed and must be lifted for the Krieger decision to
take effect has now been promoted to a Superior Court judge.
Now the guy responsible for the bogus prosecutions will be
able to sign his name to some bogus convictions too.

>Appointed a Queen's Counsel in 1988, Mr. Justice Frankel is
a respected lecturer and author. In 2004, he was awarded the
UBC Law School Adjunct Professor Outstanding Service Award.
Mr. Justice Frankel appeared frequently before the Supreme
Court of Canada and has been a Fellow of the American
College of Trial Lawyers and a Director of the Law Courts
Inn. He is also an active Board Member of the Beth Israel
Synagogue in Vancouver. These appointments are effective
immediately.

JCT: And he thinks Appellant's stays survive the appeals!
Seems sick having to call the man responsible for
Canada's greatest travesty of justice "Mr. Justice."

JCT: Seems sick having to call the man responsible for
Canada's greatest travesty of justice "Mr. Justice."


--
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

JCT: On the day Tuesday Apr 24 when I filed all five
applications for leave to appeal the Big Five Ontario Court
of Appeal medpot cases to the Supreme Court of Canada, there
was an article:

>Ottawa Citizen Apr 24 2007
>Caseload reduction baffles Supreme Court
>by Janice Tibbetts

The Supreme Court of Canada is being stumped by the case of
the shrinking docket. The number of appeals to be heard this
year is expected to dwindle to 50, significantly fewer than
the average number of about 90 annually over the last
decade. The court's spring session was supposed to begin
last week but the courtroom was empty every day because of a
shortage of cases and the judges do not begin sitting until
today.
From now until the end of June, the docket remains sparse
with only 13 appeals in all, compared to 28 cases last
spring. "It is not known whether this reduction in case load
represents a trend or an anomaly" the Supreme Court said
recently in an annual report to Parliament.
Court watchers suspect the drop is a result of fewer people
trying to take their cases to the Supreme Court, people
shying away from costly litigation that can take years to
settle, and the judge becoming more particular about which
cases fit their criteria of "national importance.

JCT: On the very same day of the article, I fixed that
problem by filing five applications, a record first for me,
five. I've filed a double but never a quintuple.

1) Pierre Drouin's Section 7 cultivating charge to claim the
Krieger invalidation of Section 7. He has since gotten his
exemption!!!
2) Real Martin's Section 7 cultivating charge to claim the
Krieger invalidation of Section 7. He can't find a doctor.
3) John Turmel's Section 5 intent to traffic charge to claim
the Krieger invalidation of Section 7 cultivation and Parker
invalidation of Section 4 possession prohibitions also
invalidated the possession with bad intent charge too.
4) John Turmel's claim to no jurisdiction without a jury
trial.
5) John Turmel's appeal against conviction on the grounds of
medical preventative use.
I'll publish their Memorandums soon.
But now the Crown has to answer five times in 30 days and no
Registrar or single prohibitionist judge can stop it from
getting before 3 judges. It brings everything into play, in
its own way. What a show it would be. A quintuple appeal.
What did Alan Young call me? Something like a 3-ring circus
lawyer? Remember the Heaven Eleven in Federal Court at the
Supreme Court of Canada building in 2001? But five in the
Supreme! That's what I call a real circus.

Anyway, the issues here are the 100,000 people who were
convicted over the two years the court finally ruled that
the law had been invalid but who have never had their
convictions expunged. After the 4000 charges they had to
drop in 2003, this is the second largest judicial screw-up
in Canadian history. The other issue is the largest snafu in
Canadian judicial history, the improper prosecution since
the Krieger decision invalidated the S.7 prohibition on
cultivation of 200,000 Canadians on the basis claimed by
Crown Attorney S. David Frankel of an Appellant's stay
continuing to exist after they lost their appeal and their
Appellant's status. Of course, the stay pending the Krieger
appeal expired when the appeal was dismissed but that bogus
reason is the only reason the Crown have got for all those
busts.


--
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

JCT: Just because it's inspiring:

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.

It matters not how straight the gait,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate.
I am the captain of my soul.


--
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

JCT: The pseudo-socred lunatic who changes the subject of
all my USENET posts to call me "piss boy" shot off his mouth
and I him to put up or shut up since it challenges my claim
to my first Nobel Prize in Economics for proving you can't
pay off a death-gamble without someone having to pay a
little death. If you're alone on your island, your mortgage
has no possible pay-off schedule. William Ryan aka Silas
Kline wore down a student of mine, Marc Gauvin, in a long
debate (after a while, beating an gnurd up gets to be
less fun) but I don't argue. I stake out the lie and watch
my opponent back down.

It's been a week since I published:

>SK: 3. The video repeats the falsehood that interest on
loans cannot be paid because the banks create only the
principal on loans, not the interest, so for that reason
debt must compound exponentially. We've had lengthy
conversations on this list refuting that lie. Silas

>JCT: Here the video is right and Ryan/Kline's wrong again.
Marc Gauvin defeated Kline in this debate but in esoteric
analysis most others couldn't or couldn't be bothered to
follow. But I can defeat you, as I've defeated you as Bill
Ryan in other debates, in terms most others do understand.
"Put your money where your mouth is."

>You said a $1000 loan amortized at 10% could be paid off if
we're the only two on the island. I bet US$100 you can't
provide a simple quarterly payment schedule without recourse
to outside money.
>Amortization is a neat word. Amoral means no morals. Amort
means no death. Amortizing your "mort-gage" means lessening
your death-gamble.
>I will do anything necessary to repay my debt so on Jan 1
my cash account goes up $1000 and my IOU account goes up
$1000. Go ahead and explain how I'll get the wherewithal to
make my Apr 1, Jul 1, Oct 1 and Jan 1 payments.
>And if anyone else wants to bet on Ryan/Kline coming up
with a way to survive the "mort-gage" death-gamble, there's
another $100 to the first one who'll bet on Ryan against The
Engineer. Har har har har.
>Anyone want to bet on Ryan? Har har har har. This is the
guy who has become so demented by his failure to be able to
take my taunting bets that he has been defacing every one of
my USENET posts with his piss-possessed graffiti responses
for the past year. No one in sci.engineering and
sci.economics or can.politics will fail to fondly remember
piss-post Ryan. Not.

JCT: One week later, Bill Ryan / Silas Kline's only response
was to my challenge:

>Discussion subject changed to "The Piss Boy" by
w_b_r...@...
Newsgroups: alt.fan.john-turmel, alt.conspiracy
From: w_b_r...@...
Date: 4 Apr 2007 06:29:48 -0700

JCT: But no schedule explaining how I can get completely out
of debt in 4 payments by selling my work for the interest.
We're waiting. Come on. I borrow 100 at 10%. Lets' say you've got me
convinced the usury can be paid if I'm all alone on my
island with my banker. Let's go over each payment and see
where the money goes. Explain how you don't get to foreclose
on me. I say the usurer gets to foreclose on the debt-slave.

Of course, interest on cows, that's different.

But Ryan / Kline wants to be an apologist for usury,
contradicting my warnings to humanity there is an element of
death inherent in the death-gamble contract that cannot be
avoided no matter the bankster-apologist says it can. He's
luring you into a death-gamble trap. And my bet proves he
can show you no escape from your one-man death-gamble game.

Bill Ryan, slowing down engineering Heaven, all the way.
But who can never take the bet, which is why posterity will
note as his only reply, I'd bet, changing the subject to
"The Piss Boy" by w_b_ryan@...

But no bet on the brainy stuff.


--
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

>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 20:27:33 +0000
>From: dpeted@... (petesrecycling)
>Subject: [MedPot-discuss] cochrane superior court
>To: MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com

High friends,
It's Pierre Drouin. Me and Real Martin just got back from
court. We got there 20 minutes late and both of our Crown
Attorney had represented us and they had set up a date for
our preliminary trial and another for our trial. The judge
was already gone in another court room when we finally got
there because of a snow storm.

But anyways once we got to talk to the lady that was setting
up court dates I advised her that we had filed for a leave
to appeal at the Supreme Court of Ottawa and that I was just
wondering if it changed anything when it came to our case
here already heading for pre trial and trial. She stopped
and then the Crown told me he would go ask the judge in the
other court room.

So 5 minutes later we got to talk to the judge and he
explained to us what was going on. He told us we where still
setting up a date for pre-trial and trial but if we got an
anwser from supreme court that this case in Cochrane would
stop again just like when we went to the court of Appeal.

He set up a pre-trial date for mai 17th and then mai 28th
for my trial. Then he gave the same date to Real for his
pre-trial on mai 17th and said something about not knowing
if it was gonna get to trial.
So I then asked the judge since I had my exemption for a
years and a half if we really needed to go to trial. He
didn't know what to say, he asked me how long I had it for
and I told him a year and a half. He then asked me to inform
the Crown of this so I told the judge I had told him over a
year ago and the Crown had told me it was a trial matter not
to mention it to the judge.
The Crown Attorney then got a dirty look from the judge.
So after all this the judge said I'll see you guys mai 17th
for a pre-trial and we'll see then if we need to even go to
trial.
The Crown Attorney asked to speak with me after justice
Nadeau left. He asked me if he could have a photocopy of my
exemption. I told him no problem that I would photocopy both
exemption lol lol lol lol.
I then asked him why he felt the need to keep dragging me
through the system since I could prove I had an exemption
and medical need for weed. At first he replied: you didn't
have a permit when you got busted. So I said: well it was
impossible to have. I then told him: look I was dead 8 years
ago and I have a medical file to back it up, do I really
need to bring busy DR's here to prove how screwed up I am
physically? He replied: no, not really; looking at my cane.
Then I asked him why do we need to keep wasting the courts
time, his time and mostly my time and health. He was
speechless.
He then turned around and walked away, while he was walking
away I asked him if we really needed to go to trial with all
this fucking bullshit. He smiled and said we'll see on the
17th. So this is how our day went in court today.
You all have a pain free wonderful day my friends.

JCT: Yes, all five of our applications for leave to appeal
to the Supreme Court must be filed by April 24 in Ottawa.
3 Prohibitions for Pierre, Real and me, one Certiorari and
Conviction for me.


--
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

JCT: I missed these last year:

>Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection
>washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html
>By Marc Kaufman
>Washington Post Staff Writer
>Friday, May 26, 2006; Page A03

MK: The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded
that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not
lead to lung cancer.

JCT: All those lies and the truth finally gets out.

MK: The new findings "were against our expectations," said
Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los
Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30
years. "We hypothesized that there would be a positive
association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that
the association would be more positive with heavier use," he
said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and
even a suggestion of some protective effect."

JCT: Even protective effect. How else to explain that
cigarette smokers get lung cancer, non-smokers get lung
cancer, but only marijuana smokers do not get lung cancer.
Gee, I've often wondered why. Is it possible to deduce?

MK: Federal health and drug enforcement officials have
widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the
case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he
still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-
causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously
thought.

JCT: They found no link, even benefit, and it's only "of
less concerned." They're still concerned about its health
dangers after being proved wrong. And just last month, the
big news was a British journal apologizing for not realizing
how dangerous marijuana really was!!! Last year, the cited
expert changed his tune.

MK: Earlier work established that marijuana does contain
cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in
tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the
chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep
them from becoming cancerous.

JCT: THC keeps cells from becoming cancerous would explain
why marijuana smokers don't get lung cancer.

MK: Tashkin's study, funded by the National Institutes of
Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse, involved 1,200
people in Los Angeles who had lung, neck or head cancer and
an additional 1,040 people without cancer matched by age,
sex and neighborhood. They were all asked about their
lifetime use of marijuana, tobacco and alcohol. The heaviest
marijuana smokers had lighted up more than 22,000 times,
while moderately heavy usage was defined as smoking 11,000
to 22,000 marijuana cigarettes. Tashkin found that even the
very heavy marijuana smokers showed no increased incidence
of the three cancers studied. "This is the largest case-
control study ever done, and everyone had to fill out a very
extensive questionnaire about marijuana use," he said. "Bias
can creep into any research, but we controlled for as many
confounding factors as we could, and so I believe these
results have real meaning."

Tashkin's group at the David Geffen School of Medicine at
UCLA had hypothesized that marijuana would raise the risk of
cancer on the basis of earlier small human studies, lab
studies of animals, and the fact that marijuana users inhale
more deeply and generally hold smoke in their lungs longer
than tobacco smokers -- exposing them to the dangerous
chemicals for a longer time. In addition, Tashkin said,
previous studies found that marijuana tar has 50 percent
higher concentrations of chemicals linked to cancer than
tobacco cigarette tar.

JCT: And yet, no lung cancer!!! THC must be a pretty
powerful cancer killer. Maybe better than apricot seeds
since apricot seeds aren't officially banned like cannabis,
yet.

MK: While no association between marijuana smoking and
cancer was found, the study findings, presented to the
American Thoracic Society International Conference this
week, did find a 20-fold increase in lung cancer among
people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day.

JCT: And keep in mind it's probably not the tobacco that's
the cause. It's probably the 500 chemicals they poison them
with.

MK:The study was limited to people younger than 60 because
those older than that were generally not exposed to
marijuana in their youth, when it is most often tried.

>Pot Kills Cancer Cells
>Posted by: "Big Bodie" fluttergas@... fluttergas
>Date: Sat Jul 8, 2006 4:16 pm (PDT)
>http://www.sierratimes.com/03/11/07/article_kubby.htm

A new study published in Nature Reviews-Cancer provides an
historic and detailed explanation about how THC and natural
cannabinoids counteract cancer, but preserve normal cells.

The study by Manuel Guzman of Madrid Spain found that
cannabinoids, the active components of marijuana, inhibit
tumor growth in laboratory animals. They do so by modulating
key cell-signalling pathways, thereby inducing direct growth
arrest and death of tumor cells, as well as by inhibiting
the growth of blood vessels that supply the tumor.

The Guzman study is very important according to Dr. Ethan
Russo, a neurologist and world authority on medical
cannabis: "Cancer occurs because cells become immortalized;
they fail to heed normal signals to turn off growth. A
normal function of remodelling in the body requires that
cells die on cue. This is called apoptosis, or programmed
cell death. That process fails to work in tumors. THC
promotes its reappearance so that gliomas, leukemias,
melanomas and other cell types will in fact heed the
signals, stop dividing, and die."

"But, that is not all," explains Dr. Russo: "The other way
that tumors grow is by ensuring that they are nourished:
they send out signals to promote angiogenesis, the growth of
new blood vessels. Cannabinoids turn off these signals as
well. It is truly incredible, and elegant."

In other words, this article explains several ways in which
cannabinoids might be used to fight cancer, and, as the
article says, "Cannabinoids are usually well tolerated, and
do not produce the generalized toxic effects of conventional
chemotherapies.

Usually, any story that even suggests the possibility of a
new treatment for cancer is greeted with headlines about a
"cancer cure" - however remote in the future and improbable
in fact it might be. But if marijuana is involved, don't
expect any coverage from mainstream media, especially since
mainstream editors have been quietly killing this story for
the past thirty years.

That's right, news about the abilility of pot to shrink
tumors first surfaced, way back in 1974. Researchers at the
Medical College of Virginia, who had been funded by the
National Institutes of Health to find evidence that
marijuana damages the immune system, found instead that THC
slowed the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice -- lung
and breast cancer, and a virus-induced leukemia. The
Washington Post reported on the 1974 study -- in the "Local"
section -- on Aug.  18, 1974.  Under the headline, "Cancer
Curb Is Studied," it read in part: "The active chemical
agent in marijuana curbs the growth of three kinds of cancer
in mice and may also suppress the immunity reaction that
causes rejection of organ transplants, a Medical College of
Virginia team has discovered." The researchers "found that
THC slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers, and a
virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged
their lives by as much as 36 percent."

"News coverage of the Madrid discovery has been virtually
nonexistent in this country. The news broke quietly on Feb.
29, 2000 with a story that ran once on the UPI wire about
the Nature Medicine article," complained MarijuanaNews.com
editor Richard Cowan , who said he was only able to find the
article through a link that appeared briefly on the Drudge
Report Web page. "The New York Times, The Washington Post,
and Los Angeles Times all ignored the story, even though its
newsworthiness is indisputable: a benign substance occurring
in nature destroys deadly brain tumors," added Cowan.

On March 29, 2001, the San Antonio Current printed a
carefully researched bombshell of a story by Raymond Cushing
titled, "POT SHRINKS TUMORS; GOVERNMENT KNEW IN '74." Media
coverage since then has been nonexistant, except for a copy
of the story on Alternet.

It is hard to believe that the knowledge that cannabis can
be used to fight cancer has been suppressed for almost
thirty years,  yet it seems likely that it will continue to
be suppressed.  Why?

According to Cowan, the answer is because it is a threat to
cannabis prohibition. "If this article and its predecessors
from 2000 and 1974 were the only evidence of the suppression
of medical cannabis, then one might perhaps be able to
rationalize it in some herniated way. However, there really
is massive proof that the suppression of medical cannabis
represents the greatest failure of the institutions of a
free society, medicine, journalism, science, and our
fundamental values," Cowan notes.

Millions of people have died horrible deaths and in many
cases, familes exhausted their savings on dangerous, toxic
and expensive drugs.  Now we are beginning to realize that
while marijuana has never killed anyone, marijuana
prohibition has killed millions.

JCT: And I only accused Justices Doherty Goudge and Simmons
for the deaths of the greater than 5000 epileptics who died
since their 2003 ruling pretending they brought the criminal
prohibition on medicine back to life. Now I can add cancer
victims over the past 2.5 years to their K-slab too.

Prohibiting medicine is genocide, obvious to a child,
cognitively dissonant to adults. I hope finding out that
recent cancer victims could have been saved wakes them up.


--
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

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
                     (Criminal Division)

Between:
                       Terrance Parker
                                                    Applicant

                             and
                    Her Majesty the Queen
                                                   Respondent

[continuing...

ISSUE 1: SHEPPARD S.7 EXEMPTION

37. In para.37: "On appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal
concluded that Sheppard J. did not have jurisdiction to
issue a declaration in regard to the cultivation offence
under the CDSA, and thus the Court set aside those portions
of Sheppard's judgment."

38. This is false. The Court of Appeal stated that the
Section 7 cultivation prohibition was not before them so
they could not strike it down with Section 4. Having not
struck down his Section 7 exemption, they did not need to
replace it with a new exemption like they did for S.4.
Sheppard's exemption from the Section 4 possession offence
was replaced by the Court of Appeal's own exemption during
the period of suspended invalidity but Sheppard's remedy for
the Section 7 violation of Parker's rights was not dealt
with nor was Parker's protection against Section 7 removed
and replaced. So the Court of Appeal could not have struck
down his personal Section 7 protection since it was not
before them. And the Crown has never appealed it back to
them yet. So Parker's personal exemption from S.7 remains
valid until an appeal with the chance for the court to
replace it by some other protection.

39. The Crown continued: "As well, since the Narcotic
Control Act had been repealed, the Court ruled that it was
unnecessary to strike down any offending provisions in that
Act."

40. Yet, the Court did find that the S.7 prohibition
violated Parker's rights too. And they did not exempt Parker
from his Section 7 predicament like they exempted him from
his Section 4 predicament, and stated that they could not
because S.7 was not before them. So then the remedy to
Parker's Section 7 predicament has never been removed
either.

41. The Crown continues: "In the result, the Court of Appeal
declared the marihuana prohibition in S.4 of the CDSA to be
invalid, but suspended this declaration declaration for 12
months and provided the Applicant with an exemption during
this period of suspended invalidity. Contrary to the
Applicant's submission, Sheppard J.'s ruling concerning the
cultivation offence had been set aside by the Court of
Appeal."

42. Why didn't they exempt him from S.7 like they exempted
him from S.4 if they changed Sheppard's S.7 remedy like they
changed Parker's S.4 remedy? When they removed Sheppard's
exemption from S.4, they provided their own exemption. If
they really removed Sheppard exemption from S.7, why didn't
they provide their own exemption from Section 7 too? And why
didn't the Crown then proceed with his trial under Section 7
if his remedy had been removed? The Court's and the Crown's
own actions belie any statement that the Court removed both
personal exemptions and only replaced one.

43. In para.38: "Accordingly, there is no basis for the
Applicant's argument that the decision of Sheppard continues
to provide the Applicant with rights to cultivate
marihuana."

44. There is no basis for the Respondent's allegation that
the Court of Appeal removed Parker's protection from Section
7 cultivation, and by implication, Section 4 possession.

ISSUE 2: EXEMPTION FROM PITT J.

45. The Crown repeats three times that Chapnik J. set aside
the order of Pitt J. without explaining how that can be done
when the Criminal Code offers no procedure for setting aside
criminal Orders.

ISSUE 3: RESURRECTION OF S.4 BY HITZIG COURT

46. In para.44, the Crown accepts that Section 2(2) of the
Interpretation Act provides as follows: 2(2) "For the
purposes of this Act, an enactment that has expired, lapsed,
or otherwise ceased to have effect is deemed to have been
repealed... but then points out "these passages from the
decision in Hitzig clearly reveal that the Court did not
determine section of the CDSA to be an enactment that had
been repealed. Instead, the Court determined that the
marijuana prohibition within section 4 of the CDSA was
inoperative."

47. The court said the statute was invalid "absent a
constitutionally acceptable exemption," not "inoperative."
The Interpretation Act does not say that statutes that have
been struck down are to be deemed "inoperative until made
operative."

48. The Crown continues: "This point has been recently
confirmed by the Court of Appeal in response to a similar
argument presented by Mr. Turmel in which he challenged the
trafficking offence under the CDSA."

49. The Court of Appeal confirmed its own ruling that lower
courts should ignore the Interpretation Act that says to
treat the prohibition as repealed and only treat them as
absent until fixed.

ISSUE 4: KRIEGER INVALIDATION OF S.7 REMAINS BINDING

50. Applicant has told the facts of the Krieger case with
respect to Section 7 charge that we are dealing with but the
Crown's version includes what went on with Krieger's Section
5(2) charge that has nothing to do with this. Applicant
agrees with the Crown's following Krieger S.7(1) facts in
paragraph 50 but ignores the S.5(2) charge information in
[parentheses]:
"50. In 1999, Grant Krieger was charged with the offences of
production of marijuana contrary to subsection 7(1) [and
possession for the purpose of trafficking contrary to
subsection 5(2)].
He brought a motion seeking a declaration that these
provisions violate section 7 of the Charter. On Dec 11 2000,
pursuant to subsection 24(1) of the Charter, Acton J. struck
down subsection 7(1) and stayed the charge against Krieger
in respect of subsection 7(1) [but permitted the charge in
respect of subsection 5(2) to proceed to trial where Krieger
was subsequently acquitted by a jury].
On Dec 4 2002, the Alberta Court of Appeal confirmed the
ruling which struck down subsection 7(1) [but ordered a new
trial in respect of Krieger's acquittal of the trafficking
charge under subjection 5(2)].
On Dec 23 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an
application for leave to appeal from this decision of the
Alberta Court of Appeal. [As the courts had ordered a new
trial on the trafficking charge, a trial was held and a
conviction was obtained. On a further appeal to the Supreme
Court, on Oct 26 2006, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal
and ordered a new trial, for the reason that the trial judge
had erred when he directed the jury to find the accused
guilty as charged. Meanwhile, Krieger had been charged with
counts of trafficking marijuana on Dec 3 2003 and Jan 2004
contrary to subsection 5(1) of the CDSA, and on Sep 25,
2006, Krieger was found guilty on both charges.]
In short, the Krieger decisions contain a ruling that the
subsection 7(1) production offence was contrary to the
Charter in respect of Krieger." The Krieger decisions
contain the ruling that the subsection 7(1) production
offence was contrary to the Charter:

51. Dropping the irrelevant parts, Applicant agrees that:
"In 1999 Grant Krieger was charged with the offence of
production of marijuana contrary to subsection 7(1)... He
brought a motion seeking a declaration that this provision
violates section 7 of the Charter. On Dec 11 2000, pursuant
to subsection 24(1) of the Charter, Acton J. struck down
subsection 7(1)... On Dec 4 2002, the Alberta Court of
Appeal confirmed the ruling which struck down subsection
7(1)... On Dec 23 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada
dismissed an application for leave to appeal from this
decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal... In short, the
Krieger decision is a ruling that the subsection 7(1)
production offence was contrary to the Charter..."

52. In para.51: "These Krieger rulings, however, are not
binding on Ontario."

53. Case law by provincial courts of appeal is only non-
binding when it is wrong. Otherwise, it is binding. A judge
refusing to follow it has to explain why he disagrees with
the established wisdom! For a court to dismiss for no good
reasons just because it is not bound to follow that is per
incuriam where things that ought to have been considered
were not.
Consider the same ludicrous argument was presented by the
Crown in the Alberta cultivation case where accused gardener
Max Cornelssen sought to prohibit his charges under Section
7 arguing the Alberta Court of Appeal had struck down the
S.7(1) cultivation prohibition in Alberta. Justice Read
accepted the Crown's argument that because only the Court of
Appeal of Ontario had struck down the MMAR in Ontario as
having failed to save the CDSA prohibitions, it was non-
binding in Alberta and since no Alberta court had ruled that
the MMAR had failed, she could hold that it had not failed
and could put the accused to trial, conviction and
incarceration for 3 months. Because the Hitzig decision was
not binding on Alberta, she ignored it stating no reason
why, just that she didn't have to follow it because the CDSA
prohibition had not been struck down in Alberta, only in
Ontario. It's a bad joke for the Crown to argue courts of
appeal that strike down penal statutes do not have national
impact when they are correct. Besides, on such an important
issue, the Supreme Court of Canada's dismissal of the
Crown's case makes the Alberta Court of Appeal's ruling even
more sustained. If it was wrong, the Crown would have
probably been granted leave to appeal. So the Alberta Court
of Appeal striking down the S.7 prohibition and sustained by
the Supreme Court is binding on this court unless why not
can be articulated. To just say the court will not be bound
by Krieger, not because it's a bad bind but because you
don't have to be bound, is the anti-thesis of justice.

54. The Crown also adds that: "As well, these rulings on the
production offence have no bearing on the possession offence
under section 4."

55. Applicant's Appendix 6 cites Crown S. David Frankel's
argument to the Supreme Court that Section 4 was, by
implication, connected to the invalidation of section 7(1).
If one is exempt from cultivation offence, one is exempt
from the possession offence. Having the Crown now argue the
very opposite of what they told the Supreme Court only
demonstrates the contempt in which they hold the courts that
are expected to bend with whatever foul wind they can blow.

56. The Crown also add: "Furthermore, the decision of Acton
was in respect of events that pre-dated the MMAR and Acton
J.'s decision was issued prior to the Ontario Court of
Appeal's decision in Hitzig and thus the decision of Acton
J. has been superseded by the MMAR and the subsequent
decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal."

57. The Crown omits the fact that the the Dec 2000 decision
of Acton J. it claims is superseded by the Ontario Court of
Appeal. was sustained by the Alberta Court of Appeal's Dec
2002 decision. The Crown may claim that the Ontario Court of
Appeal supersedes Acton but cannot claim it supersedes the
Alberta Court of Appeal, another inconvenient fact the Crown
would rather omit from its version of the facts. Besides,
the Hitzig decision claims to have unrepealed the Section 4
possession prohibition invalidation by Parker One and said
nothing about unrepealing the Section 7 cultivation
prohibition invalidation by the Krieger Court of Appeal. For
the Crown to ignore that Acton was sustained by the Court of
Appeal of Alberta and then say the Ontario Court of Appeal
supersedes her decision is another sleazy misrepresentation
of the situation. The Ontario Court of Appeal Hitzig
possession decision had no bearing on the Alberta Court of
Appeal Krieger cultivation decision. And the fact Acton
predated the non-functional MMAR has no bearing since the
MMAR did not worked on time.

ISSUE 5: PARKER'S GRANDFATHERED EXEMPTION

58. Applicant agrees when the Crown says in para.53: "It
appears that the Applicant is presenting the argument that
he has a right to possess marijuana that trumps the
regulatory regime established by the MMAR."

59. As long as doctors are allowed to opt out, the MMAR
cannot be said to work for all who need the medication. Yet,
in para.54: "The Respondent submits, however, that the MMAR
is a valid regulatory regime which must be complied with by
the Applicant. In Hitzig, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled
that is is appropriate for the MMAR to require doctors and
specialists to act as gatekeepers of the issuance of ATPs."

60. The problem is that access isn't a function of being
sick but of finding a gatekeeper! The Crown cites paragraphs
138-9 of the Hitzig decision:
[138]... It is further argued that the serious concerns of
several central medical groups about the gatekeeper role for
physicians means that doctors will not assist individuals to
obtain medical exemptions.
[139]... The second argument is answered by Lederman J.'s
finding that despite the concerns of central medical bodies,
a sufficient number of individual physicians were
authorizing the therapeutic use of marihuana that the
medical exemption could not be said to be practically
unavailable...

61. Here, the Crown dropped the rest of the paragraph:
"Of course, if in future physician co-operation drops to the
point that the medical exemption scheme becomes ineffective,
this conclusion might have to be revisited."

62. Appendix 15 is a March 30 2007 Toronto Sun article
titled "Doped up system" where Licia Corbella writes:
"ABSURDITY IN LAW
Yes, it's true the feds now make it possible for sick
Canadians to buy medicinal marijuana through legal means,
but it's almost impossible to find a physician who will
prescribe it. Just another vicious cycle that spins our
legal system into disrepute and throws righteous people in
jail."

63. The exemption scheme remains ineffective as long as
Government cannot provide a list of physicians who will
participate with the exemption system. And so the
prohibition remains invalid, if not for everyone, at least
for already-proven-sick Parker alone.

64. In para.55: "Recently, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court
ruled that a person is not exempted from compliance with the
MMAR merely because they have encountered some difficulty in
obtaining a prescription from a doctor."

65. The Crown says a ruling of the highest Court in Alberta
is not binding but now cites a lower court ruling from Nova
Scotia.

66. In para.57: "The evidence also reveals that the MMAR
regime is working well and is effective in providing ill
persons with the marihuana that they desire.

67. Fifteen hundred exemptions out of a population of
several million who need it for medical use may qualify as
"working well" for a lawyer but protecting less than a tenth
of one percent isn't what could be called success in the
real world.

68. The version of the facts which the Crown wishes the
court to accept is so filled with errors, lies by omission,
and outright falsehoods, that it's contemptuous to suggest
this court accept any of it.

69. The Applicant has the constitutional right to access to
his medicine no matter whether the Ministries of Health or
Justice think he qualifies or not. That they have failed to
enshrine a workable exemption process for Parker to receive
his medicine is their fault and until they fix their system,
they have no right to deny him his constitutional and hard-
won right to his medicine.



Dated at Brantford on April 12 2007.





_____________________________
Agent for the Applicant,
John C. Turmel
8-37 Colborne St. E.
Brantford, N3T 2G3,
Tel/Fax: 519-753-0645
Email: turmel@...

To: Judge Clements
Ontario Court of Justice
Brampton Ontario
Fax: 905-456-4829

And to: Christopher Leafloor
Of Counsel for the Respondent
Her Majesty the Queen
Email: christopher.leafloor@...
Tel/Fax: 416-973-0392/952-0298


--
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

JCT: As agent in Terry Parker's claim for return of medpot
seized by Canada Post, (do people still use government
instead of private couriers?), I got to answer the Crown's
bogus arguments. What fun.

                   ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
                     (Criminal Division)

Between:
                       Terrance Parker
                                                    Applicant

                             and
                    Her Majesty the Queen
                                                   Respondent

              APPLICANT'S REPLY TO CROWN FACTUM

1. In the Respondent's Factum, the Crown says it disagrees
with the allegations of fact contained in the Applicant's
Written Representations and presents its own version. In
Para.6, the Crown alleges as fact: "On July 30 2001, the
Government enacted the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations
(MMAR). The MMAR provided seriously ill persons with a
process by which they could obtain an authorization to
possess marijuana (ATP).

2. The real fact is that the 2003 Parker II (Hitzig) Court
of Appeal ruled that the 2001 MMAR had NOT "provided
seriously ill persons with a process by which they could
obtain an ATP" even if it did provide access for "SOME"
seriously ill persons. Despite reading Applicant's true
allegation of fact that the July 30 MMAR exemption process
had not solved his Aug. 1 court-exemption expiry dilemma,
the Crown's allegation of fact that the MMAR worked to
provide access is clearly wrong.

3. In Para.7, the Crown wrote: "At the end of this twelve-
month period, on July 30 2001, the MMAR were enacted so as
to cure the constitutional invalidity identified by the
Court of Appeal. The following day, on July 31, 2001, the
Applicant's constitutional exemption expired. Thus, as of
July 31 2001, the government and the Applicant believed that
the Applicant was once again subject to the prohibition on
the possession of marijuana."

4. The Parker Two Court eventually ruled that the
prohibition became invalid on the same day that the MMAR
missed the deadline for preventing Parker from being put
back in unconstitutional jeopardy, i.e., that the
invalidation of the S.4 CDSA prohibition on possession had
taken effect was to be deemed repealed pursuant to S.2(2) of
the Interpretation Act after July 31 2001. That the
government and even the Applicant may have believed that the
Applicant was once again subject to the prohibition on the
possession of marijuana in 2001 when the Parker Two Court
only said so later in 2003 didn't mean he was subject to an
invalid statute. Having been involved in a series of federal
court actions against Health Canada, Engineer John Turmel
was aware and celebrating that the prohibition had been
repealed due to a missed deadline, a fumble in the end zone,
by the Ministries of Justice and Health. Even presuming the
Crown's conclusion later-proven-wrong that the July 31 MMAR
had worked to keep the CDSA possession prohibition in S.4
valid, Parker's Sheppard S.7 exemption to cultivate still
remained in force.

5. In Paragraph 8: "Commencing on July 23 and Aug 8 2001,
the Applicant began to take steps to ensure that he would
not be charged with the offence of possession of marihuana.
In particular, the Applicant's counsel wrote to Health
Canada to request that the Applicant be granted an extension
of his exemption from the offence prohibiting the possession
of marijuana."

6. Because then-counsel Aaron Harnett, like all lawyers in
Canada, had not realized that his Parker One Invalidation
Order of S.4 had taken effect on Terry Parker Day 2001
doesn't change the fact that Parker Two later ruled it had
taken effect on Terry Parker Day. So, counsel sought
protection for Parker thinking the prohibition was still
valid. Even I, as Parker's legal coach, also later sought
protection for Parker while knowing the S.4 prohibition
wasn't valid because the cops who would be busting him and
lawyers and judges trying him didn't know it yet.

7. In Para.9: "On Sep 14, 2001, Health Canada notified the
Applicant that he had been granted, pursuant to S.56 of the
CDSA, a six-month exemption from the laws that prohibit the
possession of marijuana to give him an opportunity to apply
for an ATP exemption to expire on March 14 2002."

8. Parker was granted a ministry exemption six weeks too
late after the prohibition he was being exempted from had
already been repealed.

9. In Para.11, the Crown alleges as fact: "On March 13 2002,
the day before the expiry of his exemption, Applicant
commenced an Ontario Superior Court application requesting a
continuation of his "constitutional exemption from the
offence of possession of marijuana and an order "declaring
prohibition of marijuana in the CDSA to be of no force and
effect."

10. This is false. This is what Parker One sought and won, a
declaration that S.4 was of no force and effect, suspended 1
year. Parker Two was not seeking the very same thing again.
Parker Two was for a declaration that it was invalid "since
Aug. 1 2001" Terry Parker Day. The Crown deleted "since Aug.
1 2001" to distort the fact Parker Two was about when Terry
Parker Day had taken place. Adding to the confusion
generated by the Crown's deletion of the fact is titling
this section "Hitzig" when we're still in March and the
Hitzig application wasn't filed until May.

11. The Crown continues: "On March 15 2002, Pitt J. granted
the Applicant his requested extension of his "constitutional
exemption" as granted by the Ontario Court of Appeal. The
federal Crown then moved to set aside the order of Justice
Pitt. On April 19 2002, Chapnik J. set aside the Order of
Pitt J."

12. Note that the Crown omits mention of the fact that the
Chapnik Order setting aside the extension granted by Pitt J.
of the exemption granted Parker by the Ontario Court of
Appeal under its jurisdiction over Criminal Code appeals was
set aside under the Civil Rules of Procedure. Pitt
J. issued an Order pursuant to his Criminal Code
jurisdiction and there is no provision but appeal for
reversing an Order of the Superior Court of criminal
jurisdiction. But the Crown proceeded under the Civil Rules
of Procedure for setting aside default judgments! Justice
Pitt 1) granted short notice, 2) granted dispensation of
service, 3) granted criminal jurisdiction remedy and the
Crown then moved to set it aside like a default judgment
that wasn't given any real thought, obvious contempt for the
court. That the Crown used Civil Court to set aside a
Criminal Court remedy is another inconvenient fact the Crown
would rather have dropped from its version.

13. The Crown continues: "The Applicant then sought to
appeal Chapnik and sought a stay pending appeal. On May 3,
2002, Feldman J.A. refused the request for a stay. On Feb 13
2003, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Applicant's
application for leave to appeal. On cross-examination,
however, the Applicant stated that he still believes that
the Pitt J. decision continues to authorize him to possess
and cultivate marihuana, for the reason that he believes
that Chapnik J. did not legally set aside the decision of
Pitt J."

14. Though Pitt J. could only be overturned by a Court of
Appeal of criminal jurisdiction, as Parker's legal coach, I
saw nothing to lose by his seeking remedy in the civil
"moot" court, not only appealing unsuccessfully but
unsuccessfully seeking a stay from a moot court and
unsuccessfully seeking leave to appeal that too. If he was
going to put up a fight, it may as well be with everything
he had, even in a moot court.

15. In para.12, the Crown alleges as fact: "The substantive
issues raised by the Applicant's March 13 2002 application
were heard together with two other applications, one of
which had been commenced by John Turmel and Marc Paquette,
and another which had been commenced by Hitzig and others.
In the fall of 2002, these three civil applications
concerning marijuana for medical reasons were heard together
by Lederman J. of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice."

16. It is not true that our appeals were "concerning
marijuana for medical reasons" because Turmel wasn't sick.
Obviously, Parker Two (et al) weren't there to prove
prohibition was unconstitutionally bad again like the Hitzig
ailers were doing anew. Parker had already won the
declaration of invalidity in Parker One. Parker Two had
nothing at all to do with medical use other than being
linked with the Hitzig straw horse to permit the distortion
that it also was medically related. Even the Crown seems
fooled by their its lies. Parker Two was over something that
non-sick Turmel wanted too, it was not over medical use that
the sick Hitzig et al were claiming.

17. The Crown continues: "On Jan 9 2003, Lederman concluded
absence of legal supply for authorized persons was
inconsistent with fundamental justice.

18. So Lederman J. did not even respond to the Parker Two
motion that the MMAR failed for the reason that it did not
provide protection for Parker by Terry Parker Day on Aug. 1
2001 as ordered by the Parker One Court because he responded
to the Hitzig motion that the MMAR failed for the new reason
that it did not provide a legal supply as not ordered by the
Parker Court. Even the Hitzig Court of Appeal noted how
Lederman J. had not dealt with the Parker Two argument that
the legislation that was to provide the necessary exemption
within 1 year (by Terry Parker Day) did not work to save the
CDSA S.4(1) possession prohibition on time. Having not dealt
with it at all, no reasons for his dismissal could be
referred to upon appeal.

19. The Crown continues: "Lederman declared the MMAR to be
unconstitutional and invalid on grounds the framework failed
to adequately resolve issues related to source and supply of
marijuana. However, Lederman J. suspended the declaration
for six months so as to permit the Government of Canada an
opportunity to amend the MMAR or otherwise provide for a
legal source."

20. And despite being told by Justice Pitt in March 2002
that the MMAR had failed to exempt Parker by July 31 2001 as
ordered in Parker One, and now being told by Justice
Lederman in January 2003 that the
MMAR had failed to provide a legal source, for a different
reason not ordered in Parker One! Yet with these two clear
Superior Court indications that the MMAR had not saved the
CDSA S.4 prohibition on possession of marijuana so that the
Parker One Declaration of invalidity had taken effect on
Terry Parker Day, the Crown did not inform Canada's
judiciary, nor amend the Criminal Code, nor stop busting
Canadians, the second biggest judicial snafu in Canadian
history. As for the suspension of the Lederman decision
striking down the MMAR for 6 months, the Crown infers that
if the MMAR can be saved before being struck, then the CDSA
which it was supposed to save 2 year earlier can also be
saved? So Lederman J.'s opinion the MMAR exemption didn't
save the CDSA prohibition on time isn't official for 6
months so it can't be said officially that the MMAR didn't
work yet because he suspended for six months to give the
chance to the government to fix it too late. So it cannot be
said that the CDSA became invalid even though everyone knows
the MMAR didn't work. Lederman said he was giving the
government more time to fix the MMAR to save the CDSA from
dying two years earlier. Sounds like Justice in Wonderland.

21. In para.13: All parties appealed the decision of
Lederman.

22. This is false. The Hitzigs were happy to have had their
motion to declare the MMAR supply a failure and did not
appeal. The Crown was happy to have a 6 month suspension to
try to save it so they could argue that with no official
declaration of invalidity of the MMAR, there was no official
declaration of invalidity of the CDSA on Terry Parker Day
even if it had never worked, everything in suspended
animation until they got it right, and did not appeal. Only
Parker and Turmel-Paquette still wanted the Terry Parker Day
Declaration and appealed. The Crown and the Hitzigs were
Respondents and Cross-Appellants but did not appeal. Only
Parker et al were Appellants. Mr. Leafloor, as counsel on
those appeals, knows all parties did not appeal yet keeps
repeating the strange falsehood. That only Parker et all
appealed is just another inconvenient fact the Crown wants
excised from the facts.

23. At para.14, the Crown mislabels the "Parker et al"
Ontario Court Appeal proceeding "Hitzig et al."

24. Justice Weiler fixed the style of cause as Appellant
Parker, then Respondent and Cross-Appellant Hitzig. The
Crown's June 2003 Application before Justice Carthy was
styled from Appellant Parker, Respondent Hitzig,.. Yet the
Court of Appeal reversed the style from Appellant Parker et
al to Respondent Hitzig et al, thus giving giving credit for
the Terry Parker Declaration not to Terry who moved for the
Terry Parker Day Declaration in Parker Two but to sham-
victor Alan Young case who did not move for the Terry Parker
Day Declaration in his Hitzig case. Oops, maybe it was just
a 3-judge typo so it goes down in the law books as Young's
Hitzig motion winning the Parker Day declaration instead
Turmel's Parker motion.

25. In Para.14: "On July 8 2003, pending the appeals of
Lederman, Health Canada developed policies to ensure the
MMAR remained valid.

26. This is false. the MMAR cannot have "remained valid" if
the court ruled they were "invalid." For it to "remain
valid," it would have to have been originally valid. Things
can only "remain" what they "used to be," or they must be
said to have reverted back from something else. It cannot
"remain" something different than it started out being. The
Crown's bad English has a sleazy purpose.

27. In Para.16: In addition, it dismissed  the Applicant's
attempt to review the April 19 2002 decision of Chapnik J
(docket number 38113).

28. The reason given by Hitzig Court of Appeal for Ontario
is so laughable that the Crown can't even bring itself to
quote it here. The Court of Appeal said Chapnik J. was right
to set aside Superior Court Justice Pitt because the
application had not been served properly! Justices Doherty,
Goudge and Simmons must have forgotten that Superior Courts
can dispense with service altogether so how can there be
improper service? And this was ludicrous reason was the only
pretext for dismissal they had available! Besides, nowhere
in the lower court documentation was there any argument by
the Crown that Terry's personal service on their office had
in any way been remiss! The original reason they sought to
set Pitt's order aside as a default judgment in civil court
was because they had failed to show up! Terry had properly
served the documentation! The Court of Appeal made up the
"improper service" pretext as their last gasp to shut out
the implications of a valid Pitt ruling that the Government
had failed to comply with the court's order for the simple
reason of having left Parker unexempted.

29. The Crown continues: "The Court of Appeal determined
that the MMAR were constitutionally defective and... and
remedied the constitutional deficiencies it had
identified...

30. The Court in Parker One said it wasn't up to the courts
to remedy constitutional deficiencies, it was up to
Parliament. Who's to say they did it right, that they caught
all the errors. That's Parliament's prerogative, said the
Parker One Court, a prerogative the Hitzig Court has
improperly usurped in saying they have resurrected repealed
statures. Plus, the Hitzig Court of Appeal fixed the MMAR
too late to save the CDSA prohibition that had been repealed
once of no force and effect two years earlier.

31. In para.17: "As the Court remedied the deficiencies, the
MMAR continued to be constitutional...

32. This is false. Again, sleazy bad English is being used.
Just like it can only remain what it used to be, not what it
did not used to be, it can only "continue to be" what it
used to be, not what it did not used to be. So when the
Crown says "it continued to be constitutional," it presumes
it continues to be what it was, constitutional. But once
again, in this case, the court ruled it that it was
unconstitutional as of Terry Parker Day so the Crown can not
now say that it "continued to be constitutional." To use the
words "continue to be," you would have to say it "continued
to be unconstitutional," not "constitutional." Or it
reverted to from unconstitutional to constitutional. Since
it used to be unconstitutional, it now being constitutional
again cannot be said to mean "continued to be
constitutional." Again, sleazy rhetoric to try to evade that
the law used to be of no force and effect, repealed pursuant
to the Interpretation Act. The Crown version insists that it
"continues to be" valid to presume it was never been
invalid. So just like our real situation could not earlier
"remain" valid when it used to be invalid, it cannot now
"continue to be" constitutional when it used to be
unconstitutional.

33. The Crown continues: "and thus the prohibition on the
possession of marijuana under section 4 of the CDSA
continued to be constitutional as well."

34. This is false. If the statute used to be
"unconstitutional," it cannot have "continued being
constitutional." This is the third time for the same
rhetorical sleaze being chanted like a mantra.

35. In para.19, the Crown notes that John Turmel's and Terry
Parker's applications for leave to appeal were dismissed by
the Supreme Court of Canada.

36. The Crown's version fails to mention that they were not
dismissed after adjudication of the issues but dismissed as
abandoned without adjudication of any issues. They are all
being raised in the upcoming Turmel appeals to the SCC.

[continued...


--
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

>Subject: [ijccr] Money as Debt
>Posted by: "Silas A. Kline" s_a_kline@...
>Date: Tue Apr 3, 2007 9:33 am ((PDT))

SK: Todd, I will assume that the video was placed on Google
because they couldn't sell it, which is not surprising,
considering its poor quality. The animations are extremely
primitive. But my biggest complaint has to do with its
factual errors. So far, after watching about twenty minutes,
these are the errors that I've noted:

1. The fractional reserve process is not described
accurately at all. In the video, there is an initial deposit
in bank 1 in the amount of eleven hundred something by the
bank's proprietors. Off that base the bank lends ten
thousand dollars, which is deposited into bank 2. The video
says that this deposit into bank 2 becomes the basis for
further loans.

JCT: The movie was off by a factor of 10. Every economics
textbook and http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/bankmath.htm
even explains how the $1000 deposit divided by the 10%
reserve ratio is the eventual monetary mass of $1000 / 0.1 =
$10,000. The movie ends up with $100,000.

It's elementary. Bank 1 cannot lend out 10 times the
original $1000 deposit, it can only create and lend out the
reserve ratio, 90%, of the deposit, $900 new dollars. Then
that $900 goes into bank 2 as basis for another 90% of $900,
then into another bank for 90% of $810, then another 90% of
729, etc. to multiply up to $10,000. It's a sad elementary
error because it it presumes the multiplier's x10 increase
occurs in bank 1 before going on to the real x10 multiplier
effect that occurs through deposits in other banks. There
was no multiplier effect in the first bank. Simple
unimportant error. So how did Silas Kline, aka, William B
Ryan, explain the mistake:

SK: The reality is that bank 1's proprietors will have to
come up with the difference between the ten thousand dollars
transferred into bank 2, and its own reserve deposit of
eleven hundred something, which must be transferred into
bank 2's account by the reserve bank.

JCT: They won't have to come up with the other $9,000
transfered into bank 2 because they had to have already come
up with it before they could make the deposit to bank 2. But
if they did make the deposit, it's because they did use
their own $9000 rather than any created money, not that they
"will have to come up with it" in the future.

Kline/Ryan fails to identify the real problem, the erroneous
x10 in bank 1 that could not have happened! But the movie
got it wrong even though I did the very same 10% example in
my bankmath analysis. I told Tom Kennedy that was the reason
I couldn't promote a flawed and easily critiqued production.
Hey, if Ryan can successfully critique it, it had to be
easy.

SK: 2. The video declares that the borrower's promissory
note tendered to the bank for his loan is "money."

JCT: Of course, the "IOU" is not the token.

SK: But if general acceptability is a criterion for a
negotiable instrument to be "money," then the
borrower's promissory note is definitely not money by
that definition.

JCT: It definitely is in any town with a LETS. That's what
LETS is all about, empowering each individual to get credit
for what he needs now in exchange for his promise to return
value later. In LETS, everyone's promissory note is money.

SK: Deposit balances in checking accounts are money, being
the liabilities of the banks to the general public, are
money by the criterion of general acceptability.

JCT: And time liabilities of the LETS members, commitments
they're often called, are also money by the criterion of
general acceptability. But yes, again, the video does
confuse the "IOU" with the "monetary chip" so even Ryan can
beat it.

SK: 3. The video repeats the falsehood that interest on
loans cannot be paid because the banks create only the
principal on loans, not the interest, so for that reason
debt must compound exponentially. We've had lengthy
conversations on this list refuting that lie. Silas

JCT: Here the video is right and Ryan/Kline's wrong again.
Marc Gauvin defeated Kline in this debate but in esoteric
analysis most others couldn't or couldn't be bothered to
follow. But I can defeat you, as I've defeated you as Bill
Ryan in other debates, in terms most others do understand.

"Put your money where your mouth is."

You said a $1000 loan amortized at 10% could be paid off if
we're the only two on the island. I bet US$100 you can't
provide a simple quarterly payment schedule without recourse
to outside money.

Amortization is a neat word. Amoral means no morals. Amort
means no death. Amortizing your "mort-gage" means lessening
your death-gamble.

I will do anything necessary to repay my debt so on Jan 1 my
cash account goes up $1000 and my IOU account goes up $1000.
Go ahead and explain how I'll get the wherewithal to make my
Apr 1, Jul 1, Oct 1 and Jan 1 payments.

And if anyone else wants to bet on Ryan/Kline coming up with
a way to survive the "mort-gage" death-gamble, there's
another $100 to the first one who'll bet on Ryan against The
Engineer. Har har har har.

Anyone want to bet on Ryan? Har har har har. This is the guy
who has become so demented by his failure to be able to take
my taunting bets that he has been defacing every one of my
USENET posts with his piss-possessed graffiti responses for
the past year. No one in sci.engineering and sci.economics
or can.politics will fail to fondly remember piss-post Ryan.
Not.

By the way, I disagreed when they banned Ryan from the IJCCR
for his foul language which is why he had to change his ID
to Silas Kline. He only brought disgrace onto himself by his
uncouth speech, not the group, but he was always on topic no
matter how disagreeably. And admit it, the group's been
pretty boring without our resident "wrongo" challenging us
with his constant mistakes.

But http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/ryan00x.htm details my
many earlier posts where I kept beating up on his mistakes
and betting be was wrong. He could never take one bet but
simply moved on to his next loser position. I enjoyed using
him as my foil. To see him always back down had a certain
reassuring value to me and back in our days in the early
1980s when we picketed the Bank of Canada every "change the
interest" Thursday, Marc and I used to most cherish having a
gnurd willing to argue with us and get beaten up in public.

So, the movie makes small technical errors on the
malfunctioning system but is right on the money for the vast
vision of a well-functioning LETS social credits system.

Finally, there is nothing wrong with "money as debt." Money
doesn't have to be based on positive asset, it can be based
on negative IOU, like LETS. The the Subject implies the
wrong problem, money as debt, rather than feedback on money.

Overall, I give "Money as Debt" a C. The overall time spent
on viewing it is worthwhile. Ryan gets up a notch from his
constant F for failing to see the big UNILETS picture to a
D-minus for catching the elementary error.


--
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

>[ijccr] Chavez to create local currencies for the poor
>Posted by: "Miguel Yasuyuki Hirota" mig@...
>Date: Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:55 am ((PDT))

>Dear all, I'd like to share with you an important news from
Venezuela:
english.eluniversal.com/2007/03/30/en_eco_art_chavez-to-create-cur_30A850293.sht\
ml

ElUniversal.com
Friday March 30 2007

EU: Chavez to create currency for barter

Venezuelan President announced creation of a "community
currency system," intended to facilitate trade of products
among organized low-income communities.

JCT: The very first two 2 lines of political poem from the
King of the paupers was:

"Why represent our wealth with their chips for a fee,
When we can represent our wealth with our chips for free?"

JCT: So, If we poor represent our time with our chips for
free, Why represent our time with bank chips for a fee?
Game over for the banksters.

EU:Chavez instructed Minister of People's Economy Pedro
Morejon "to set a date" for implementation of this
"alternative trade system," Efe reported.

JCT: Can Canadians join their barter network too? We'll find
them accommodations in Canada if they'll find us
accommodations in Venezuela?

EU: He added that the relevant regulations could be enforced
through a presidential decree, under the special ruling
powers conferred upon him from February 2007 to mid-2008 by
the National Assembly.

JCT: Casino Banco de Venezuela tokens are good here too.

EU: The alternative trade system is aimed at "giving the
poor the chance to acquire products through barter, with a
barter currency that may circulate in a given territorial
space and that is valid for a given period," Chavez said in
his TV show "Alo, Presidente! (Hello, President!) late
Thursday."

JCT: Oh no, an expiry date is a demurrage booby-trap.
Everyone will want to get rid of it before it expires. Just
as no one wants to be caught with the Queen of Spades in
Hearts, no one wants to be caught with the expiring money.
But one of the Canadian Dollar systems fixed the users'
abhorence of their currency just by cancelling the expiry
date. Otherwise, Hugo's Team won't get an A in Banking
Systems Engineering from the Professor of Banking Systems
Engineering even they will get a B. With an upgrade to an A
as easy as cancelling the expiry date.

EU: According to Chavez, "a system based on community
currencies is operating in north Brazil and some towns in
Mexico."

JCT: The only way to intertrade three different national
social currencies is by converting to the time-standard of
money.

Isn't it neat watching a whole continent throw off their
debt shackles even if almost no one else is aware of what's
going on. Remember how Argentina went from broke to IMF-
debt-free with no one being aware that a financial miracle
was even going on. It's the same now. Only we few on the
inside get to watch the South shuck their financial chains.

E-barter of people's time is here to stay. Again, can
Canadians open timetrading accounts with their networks too?

So Hugo's social currency system will get a B from the
Professor of Banking Systems Engineering unless they cancel
the expiry date.


--
Abolitionist 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 519-753-0645 USENET: can.politics

JCT: Canada Post seized marijuana destined for Terry Parker
and he's now pursuing a Section 24 application for the
return of a controlled substance. I've already published his
Written Representations and the Crown (CR:) has now
responded with its Factum. This is part II:

PART II - RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S ISSUES
-----------------------------------------

33. The Applicant made submissions in regard to the
following five issues that he had identified:

1) Sheppard J. criminal court constitutional exemption for
cultivation remains valid despite a change in name of the
statute prohibiting cultivation.

2) Pitt J. criminal extension of constitutional exemption by
Ontario Court of Appeal remains valid despite being set
aside as a "default judgment" pursuant to the Rules of Civil
Procedure and for improper service to a court which may
dispense with any service at all.

3) S.4 possession prohibition remains repealed pursuant to
the S.2.2 of the Interpretation Act once declared invalid by
the Parker Court of Appeal in 2001 despite S.4 being
resurrected by the Hitzig Court of Appeal for only being
being absent, not repealed, once being declared of no force
and effect by the Parker Court.

4) Section 7 cultivation prohibition and by implication S.4
possession prohibition remain repealed pursuant to the S.2.2
of the Interpretation Act once declared invalid by the
Krieger Court of Appeal of Alberta in 2002.

5) With the MMAR failing to mandate that Parker's doctor
participate in the government's exemption program, S.7
cultivation and S.4 possession prohibitions cannot apply to
Parker because he grandfathered exemption for the sick.

34. The position of the Respondent in regard to these
submissions is as follows;

1) SHEPPARD J. CRIMINAL COURT CONSTITUTIONAL EXEMPTION FOR
CULTIVATION REMAINS VALID DESPITE A CHANGE IN NAME OF THE
STATUTE PROHIBITING CULTIVATION.

35. The Applicant has submitted that "Sheppard J. criminal
court constitutional exemption for cultivation remains valid
despite a change in name of the statute prohibiting
cultivation." In support of this submission, the Applicant
has provided the solitary argument:
"Argument backing up the ground that Parker's Sheppard
exemption remains in force for cultivation and by
implication possession remains unchallenged."

36. It appears that the applicant is presenting the argument
Sheppard J. granted the Applicant an exemption from the
cultivation offence, and that that exemption continues to
apply, which thus provides the Applicant with an exemption
to the possession offence.

37. The Applicant's argument, however, is based on the
misunderstanding of the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision
in respect of Sheppard J.'s judgment. In fact, the decision
of Sheppard J. read down the possession and cultivation
offences concerning marihuana, under both the CDSA and
Narcotic Control Act (NCA) (although Sheppard J. recognized
that the Narcotic Act had been repealed by Parliament
effective May 14 1997), so as to exempt from their ambit
persons possession or cultivating marihuana for their
personal medically approved use. On appeal, the Ontario
Court of Appeal concluded that Sheppard J. did not have
jurisdiction to issue a declaration in regard to the
cultivation offence under the CDSA, and thus the Court set
aside those portions of Sheppard's judgment.

JCT: No, they did not. Just as the Court of Appeal said that
the Section 7 cultivation prohibition was not before them so
they could not strike it down with Section 4 while giving
Terry an exemption against section 7 and 4, so too, the
section 7 cultivation prohibition was not before them so
they could not strike down Sheppard's exemption remedy.
Sheppard's exemption for the Section 4 possession offence
was replaced by the Court of Appeals's exemption during the
period of suspended invalidity but Sheppard's remedy for the
Section 7 violation of Parker's rights was not dealt with
nor was Parker's protection against Section 7 removed. So
the Court of Appeal could not have struck down his Section 7
protection since it was not before them. And it's never been
appealed since. So it's still valid until appealed giving
the court the chance to replace it by some other protection.

CR: As well, since the Narcotic Control Act had been
repealed, the Court ruled that it was unnecessary to strike
down any offending provisions in that Act.

JCT: And since they did not fix Parker's Section 7
predicament like they fixed his Section 4 predicament, and
stated that they could not because it was not before them,
then the remedy to Parker's Section 7 predicament has never
been removed either.

CR: In the result, the Court of Appeal declared the
marihuana prohibition in S.4 of the CDSA to be invalid, but
suspended this declaration declaration for 12 months and
provided the Applicant with an exemption during this period
of suspended invalidity. Contrary to the Applicant's
submission, Sheppard J.'s ruling concerning the cultivation
offence had been set aside by the Court of Appeal.

JCT: If they changed Sheppard's Section 7 remedy, why didn't
they protect him like when they changed the S.4 remedy? When
they removed Sheppard's exemption for Terry from S.4, they
provided their own exemption for Terry from Section 4. If
they really removed his Sheppard exemption from S.7, why
didn't they provide their own exemption from Section 7 too?
And why didn't the Crown then proceed with his trial if his
remedy had been removed? The Court's and the Crown's own
actions belie any statement that the Court removed both
protections and only replaced one.

CR: 38. Accordingly, there is no basis for the Applicant's
argument that the decision of Sheppard continues to provide
the Applicant with rights to cultivate marihuana.

JCT: There is no basis for the Respondent's allegation that
the Court of Appeal removed Parker's Section 7 cultivation,
and by implication, Section 4 possession, protection.

CR: 2) PITT J. CRIMINAL COURT EXTENSION OF CONSTITUTIONAL
EXEMPTION GRANTED BY ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL REMAINS VALID
DESPITE BEING SET ASIDE AS A "DEFAULT JUDGMENT" PURSUANT TO
THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND FOR IMPROPER SERVICE TO A
COURT WHICH MAY DISPENSE WITH ANY SERVICE AT ALL.

39. The Applicant has submitted that "Pitt J. criminal
extension of constitutional exemption by Ontario Court of
Appeal remains valid despite being set aside as a "default
judgment" pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure and for
improper service to a court which may dispense with any
service at all." In support of this submission, the
Applicant has provided the following solitary argument:
"The Pitt decision extending the criminal jurisdiction
exemption granted by the Ontario Court of Appeal cannot be
set aside pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure as a
default judgment nor for improper service by a court which
may dispense with service all together."

40. This argument presented by Applicant appears to be based
on a misunderstanding of the legal proceedings subsequent to
the decision of Pitt J. On April 19 2002, Chapnik set aside
the order of Pitt J.

JCT: Gee, if he repeats the result, it must make the process
okay. No

CR: The Applicant then

JCT: Notice absolutely no basis provided for the setting
aside of an criminal Order by an equivalent judge.

CR: sought to appeal the decision of Chapnik and sought a
stay pending appeal. On May 3, 2002, Feldman J.A. refused
the request for a stay of the decision of Chapnik J. On Feb
13 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the
Applicant's application for leave to appeal. As well, on Oct
7 2003, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the
Applicant's attempt to review the April 19 2002 decision of
Chapnik J.

JCT: This is pure repetition from earlier.

CR: 41. Despite these court rulings, the Applicant continues
to believe that the Pitt J. decision continues to authorize
him to possess and cultivate marihuana, for the reason that
he believes that Chapnik did not legally set aside the
decision of Pitt J.

JCT: This is repeated too.

CR: 42. In short, the Pitt J. decision was set aside.

JCT: Including no basis provided for one judge setting aside
a criminal Order. Third time it's just repeated without
explaining where Chapnik got the jurisdiction under the
Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a decision issued
under the Criminal Rules of Practice.

CR: and the Applicant cannot now be permitted to launch a
collateral attack on the decisions that set aside the
endorsement of Pitt J.

3. S.4 POSSESSION PROHIBITION REMAINS REPEALED PURSUANT TO
THE S.2(2) OF THE INTERPRETATION ACT ONCE DECLARED INVALID
BY THE PARKER COURT OF APPEAL IN 2001 DESPITE S.4 BEING
RESURRECTED BY THE HITZIG COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONLY BEING
BEING ABSENT, NOT REPEALED, ONCE BEING DECLARED OF NO FORCE
AND EFFECT BY THE PARKER COURT.

3) The Applicant has submitted that "S.4 possession
prohibition remains repealed pursuant to the S.2.2 of the
Interpretation Act once declared invalid by the Parker Court
of Appeal in 2001 despite S.4 being resurrected by the
Hitzig Court of Appeal for only being being absent, not
repealed, once being declared of no force and effect by the
Parker Court." In support of this submission, the Applicant
has provided the following solitary argument:
"When asked where the Hitzig court got the power to
resurrect a statute that's been struck down, Greg Smith in
R. v. Nielsen et al is the only Crown Attorney to ever
explain that though there was no written authority, the
court wouldn't have done it if it couldn't do it so it can.
The Hitzig Court did not have the authority to order courts
in Canada to ignore the Interpretation Act that a statute
declared of no force and effect was to be deemed repealed
and to follow their order that such statute was to be deemed
merely absent until fixed, not repealed."

44. Section 2(2) of the Interpretation Act provides as
follows: 2(2) "For the purposes of this Act, an enactment
that has expired, lapsed, or otherwise ceased to have effect
is deemed to have been repealed."

JCT: Seems pretty clear to me.

CR: 45. Thus, it appears that the Applicant is presenting
the argument that once the Hitzig decision determined that
the MMAR were flawed, then the Interpretation Act deemed the
prohibition on the possession of marijuana in section 4 of
the CDSA to have been repealed and thus incapable of
"resurrection."

JCT: Seems pretty clear, especially since that is what
Justices Phillips, Rogin, and Chen said of the prohibition
they had deemed repealed because it had ceased to have
effect since Terry Parker Day and as a nullity, could not be
resuscitated. I'm not the only one saying that that's the
way Parliament intended laws that were declared of no force
and effect to be considered by the courts.

CR: 46. Again, the Applicant's argument appears to be based
on a misunderstanding of the order and reasons for decision
of the Court of Appeal in Hitzig which clearly indicate that
section 4 of the CDSA was not repealed:

"[166] The declarations of invalidity we propose remove the
single unconstitutional barrier to eligibility and
sufficient barriers to supply that ATP holders will be
reasonably able to meet their medical needs from licit
sources. As a result, the MMAR as modified become a
constitutionally sound medical exemption to the marihuana
prohibition in s. 4 of the CDSA...

[170] First, if we do not suspend our order, there will
immediately be a constitutionally valid exemption in effect
and the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 of the CDSA will
immediately be constitutionally valid and of full force and
effect.

JCT: Parliament tells the courts to consider statutes which
have been declared of no force and effect to be repealed and
the Hitzig Court of Appeal tells the courts to consider
statutes not repealed but only quasi-struck down.

CR: In R. v. Parker, supra, this court declared the
prohibition invalid as of July 31, 2001 if by that date the
Government had not enacted a constitutionally sound medical
exemption. Our decision in this case confirms that it did
not do so. Hence the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 has been of no
force or effect since July 31, 2001.

JCT: There's the proof that the S.4 prohibition took place
on Terry Parker Day.

CR: Since the July 8, 2003 regulation did not address the
eligibility deficiency, that alone could not have cured the
problem. However, our order has the result of
constitutionalizing the medical exemption created by the
Government. As a result, the marihuana prohibition in s. 4
is no longer inconsistent with the provisions of the
Constitution.

JCT: If it was still alive, it would no longer be
inconsistent. But it's dead.

CR: Although Parliament may subsequently choose to change
it, that prohibition is now no longer invalid, but is of
full force and effect.

JCT: The Hitzig Court brings a penal stature that had been
repealed back to life without Parliamentary scrutiny. Are
they soon bringing back capital punishment?

CR: Those who establish medical need are simply exempted
from it.

JCT: This is the Derek Francisco card. People who can show
legitimate medical need are exempted when they were busted
so they can get their stuff back. They had the implied
exemption of all people with medical need who only need to
prove it to the court if they couldn't or didn't prove it to
Health Canada.

CR: This consequence removes the cloud of uncertainty from
the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 of the CDSA - a cloud
which we were told in argument has created very considerable
confusion for courts and law enforcement agencies alike...

JCT: Resulting in the deaths of over 5000 extra epileptics
in Canada over the past three plus years.

CR: [171] Second, in argument, counsel for the Government
strongly urged that if we found the MMAR to be
constitutionally flawed, we should be as precise as possible
in specifying the corrective measures to be taken.

JCT: Which is exactly what the Parker Court of Appeal said
it would not do as that was a job for Parliament. Lucky we
got a panel of judge willing to do Parliament's job for
them.

CR: Our remedy quite precisely determines the barriers in
the MMAR which, if removed, would render it a
constitutionally sound medical exemption to s. 4 of the
CDSA.

JCT: And they caught them all. No mistakes. It's now perfect
as no bureaucracy or Parliament could design. No mistakes.
Its engineering is now in working order because judges are
such experts in systems engineering.

CR: Our order represents a minimal intrusion on the
Government's scheme of medical exemption.

JCT: An intrusion on Parliament's prerogative the Parker
Court had said was improper for courts to do.

CR: It leaves untouched the licensed possession aspect of
the scheme and modifies the licensed production aspect of it
only enough to make it constitutionally acceptable.

JCT: And, being judges, they got it perfectly right. And
they're accountable, just like Parliament, for any errors.
Not.

CR: 47. These passages from the decision in Hitzig clearly
reveal that the Court did not determine section of the CDSA
to be an enactment that had been repealed.

JCT: These passages will be included in any indictment of
these judges presumptuous enough to seize Parliamentary
prerogative to put me in jail. Someday, we'll get to see
them on the other side of the docket, even if in posterity's
court.

CR: Instead, the Court determined that the marijuana
prohibition within section 4 of the CDSA was inoperative.

JCT: The court used the word "absent" but this is a new one.
We've had quite a few different interpretations from
different Crowns rather than "repealed," "absent" is what
the Court of Appeal said, and now inoperative. Show me in
the Interpretation Act where it says that statutes that have
been struck down are to be deemed "inoperative until made
operative."

CR: This point has been recently confirmed by the Court of
Appeal in response to a similar argument presented by Mr.
Turmel in which he challenged the trafficking offence under
the CDSA.

JCT: The Court of Appeal confirmed its own ruling for lower
courts to ignore the Interpretation Act that says to treat
the prohibition as repealed and only treat them as absent
until fixed. And the Crown remains confused between the
"trafficking" and "possession for the purpose of
trafficking" charge which I was faced; though my argument
that no possession or no cultivation offence negates both.

CR: 4. SECTION 7 CULTIVATION PROHIBITION AND BY IMPLICATION
S.4 POSSESSION PROHIBITION REMAIN REPEALED PURSUANT TO THE
S.2(2) OF THE INTERPRETATION ACT ONCE DECLARED INVALID BY
THE KRIEGER COURT OF APPEAL OF ALBERTA IN 2002.

48. The Applicant has submitted that "Section 7 cultivation
prohibition and by implication S.4 possession prohibition
remain repealed pursuant to the S.2.2 of the Interpretation
Act once declared invalid by the Krieger Court of Appeal of
Alberta in 2002." In support of this submission, the
Applicant has provided the following solitary argument:

"The Hitzig Court of Appeal did not resurrect the Section 7
cultivation prohibition, and by implication, section 4
possession, which had been struck down by the Alberta Court
of Appeal in 2002. Since those arguments are all being
raised in the 3 appeals of John Turmel in the Ontario Court
of Appeal on Feb 23 2007, the factums for the relevant
C44587 appeal against refusal to prohibit charges and C45295
appeal against conviction and failure to permit
constitutional challenge, are appended. Due to the volume of
case law, only the very important appendices used in
Prohibition Applications will be included herein:
App.1: 2000 Jul 31 Parker Ont.C.A. Order on CDSA S.4....(A1)
App.2: 2002 Dec 04 Krieger Ab.C.A. Memorandum on S.7....(A2)
App.3: 2002 Dec 05 Calgary Herald Krieger article.......(A6)
App.4: 2002 Dec 05 Calgary Sun Krieger article..........(A7)
App.5: 2003 May 14 Turmel holds back marijuana bill.....(A8)
App.6: 2003 May 16 S. David Frankel culpability clause..(A9)
App.7: 2003 Oct 07 Hitzig Ont.C.A. Order for MMAR fix..(A10)
App.8: 2003 Oct 07 Turmel Ont.C.A. Order for Parker Day(A12)
App.9: 2003 Dec 08 Turmel stays 4000 since Parker Day..(A14)
App.10: 2003 Dec 23 Krieger Supreme Court Order........(A15)
App.11: 2004 Apr 01 Turmel to A.G. for 100,000 more....(A17)
App.12: 2005 Nov 02 Affidavit of Scott Couper..........(A18)
App.13: 2006 Apr 17 Turmel Consolidated factum C44587..(B01)
App.14: 2007 Jan 28 Turmel Factum C45295...............(C01)
Any other cases cited are referenced by their web site.

49. These above-noted material submitted by the Applicant
refer to the Krieger decisions. However, the argument
presented by the Applicant appears to be based on a
misunderstanding of the significance of the Krieger
decisions.

50. In 1999, Grant Krieger was charged with the offences of
production of marijuana contrary to subsection 7(1) and
possession for the purpose of trafficking contrary to
subsection 5(2). He brought a motion seeking a declaration
that these provisions violate section 7 of the Charter. On
Dec 11 2000, pursuant to subsection 24(1) of the Charter,
Acton J. struck down subsection 7(1) and stayed the charge
against Krieger in respect of subsection 7(1) but permitted
the charge in respect of subsection 5(2) to proceed to trial
where Krieger was subsequently acquitted by a jury. On Dec 4
2002, the Alberta Court of Appeal confirmed the ruling which
struck down subsection 7(1) but ordered a new trial in
respect of Krieger's acquittal of the trafficking charge
under subjection 5(2). On Dec 23 2003, the Supreme Court of
Canada dismissed an application for leave to appeal from
this decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal. As the courts
had ordered a new trial on the trafficking charge, a trial
was held and a conviction was obtained. On a further appeal
to the Supreme Court, on Oct 26 2006, the Supreme Court
allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, for the reason
that the trial judge had erred when he directed the jury to
find the accused guilty as charged. Meanwhile, Krieger had
been charged with counts of trafficking marijuana on Dec 3
2003 and Jan 2004 contrary to subsection 5(1) of the CDSA,
and on Sep 25, 2006, Krieger was found guilty on both
charges. In short, the Krieger decisions contain a ruling
that the subsection 7(1) production offence was contrary to
the Charter in respect of Krieger.

51. These Krieger rulings, however, are not binding on
Ontario.

JCT: The ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada is.

CR: As well, these rulings on the production offence have no
bearing on the possession offence under section 4.

JCT: But the Crown argued in their Krieger Memorandum that
if cultivation was not illegal, by implication, possession
was not illegal, and now argue the opposite.

CR: Furthermore, the decision of Acton was in respect of
events that pre-dated the MMAR and Acton J.'s decision was
issued prior to the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in
Hitzig and thus the decision of Acton J. has been superseded
by the MMAR and the subsequent decision of the Ontario Court
of Appeal.

JCT: They're fudging the timing to make that statement. The
Acton decision was already affirmed by the Alberta Court of
Appeal in Dec 2002 before the Hitzig decision was handed
down by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Oct 2003 and it
cannot be said that the Ontario Court of Appeal superseded
the Alberta Court of Appeal. Also, the MMAR was not valid
when Acton and the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled so it could
never supersede their decisions either.

5. WITH THE MMAR FAILING TO MANDATE THAT PARKER'S DOCTOR
PARTICIPATE IN THE GOVERNMENT'S EXEMPTION PROGRAM, S.7
CULTIVATION AND S.4 POSSESSION PROHIBITIONS CANNOT APPLY TO
PARKER BECAUSE HE GRANDFATHERED EXEMPTION FOR THE SICK.

52. The Applicant has submitted that "With the MMAR failing
to mandate that Parker's doctor participate in the
government's exemption program, S.7 cultivation and S.4
possession prohibitions cannot apply to Parker because he
grandfathered exemption for the sick." In support of this
submission, the Applicant has provided the following
solitary argument:
"On July 27 2006, a cultivation charge was withdrawn against
Derek Francisco in Lindsay Ontario after he received his
Health Canada exemption. The Court has a S.24 order dated
Aug. 21 2006 in which Justice Rhys-Morgan signed a S.24
Order prepared by Mr. Greenspoon, Crown Attorney, returning
the controlled substance to Francisco though he only had a
generic claim to Krieger exemption due to illness at the
time."

53. It appears that the Applicant is presenting the argument
that he has a right to possess marijuana that trumps the
regulatory regime established by the MMAR.

54. The Respondent submits, however, that the MMAR is a
valid regulatory regime which must be complied with by the
Applicant. In Hitzig, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that
is is appropriate for the MMAR to require doctors and
specialists to act as the gatekeepers of the issuance of
ATPs.
[138] The second attack on the eligibility barriers created
by the MMAR focuses on the use of physicians as gatekeepers
in the sense that every application must be supported by a
doctor and it is that doctor who must declare that marihuana
is recommended to mitigate the symptom involved. It is
argued that this places unwarranted power to determine
whether an individual receives a medical exemption in the
hands of physicians rather than letting the individual
decide for him or herself or having the Minister of Health
do so. It is further argued that the serious concerns of
several central medical groups about the gatekeeper role for
physicians means that doctors will not assist individuals to
obtain medical exemptions.
[139] Again, we do not agree. Whether marihuana will
mitigate the particular symptom of an individual with a
particular serious medical condition is fundamentally a
medical question. Just as physicians are relied on to
determine the need for prescription drugs, it is reasonable
for the state to require the medical opinion of physicians
here, particularly given that this drug is untested.[11] The
second argument is answered by Lederman J.'s finding that
despite the concerns of central medical bodies, a sufficient
number of individual physicians were authorizing the
therapeutic use of marihuana that the medical exemption
could not be said to be practically unavailable...

JCT: Look at the part the Crown dropped:
"This finding of fact is entirely reasonable on the record
in this case and we would not interfere with it. Of course,
if in future physician co-operation drops to the point that
the medical exemption scheme becomes ineffective, this
conclusion might have to be revisited." And the law become
dead again?

CR: [140] The third attack on the eligibility conditions of
the MMAR, and the one focused on in the argument before us,
rests on the requirement that the physician support for a
medical exemption for individuals in category 2 and category
3 must come from specialists...

[142] In our view, this argument too does not succeed. In
order to qualify for a medical exemption, both individuals
in category 2 and those in category 3 must have a
declaration from a specialist practicing in an area of
medicine relevant to the treatment of the individual's
medical condition causing the symptom to be mitigated. The
declaration must say that all conventional treatments for
the symptom have been tried or considered and why each is
medically inappropriate. The requirement for a declaration
in this form serves substantial and compelling state
interests. First, it serves the state interest in protecting
the health and safety of its citizens in relation to an
untested drug. Second, it serves the state interest in
complying with international conventions aimed at
restricting the use of drugs such as marihuana save for
legitimate medical and scientific purposes. A specialist in
the treatment of the particular medical condition is likely
to have more knowledge than a general practitioner of the
complete range of possible treatments, including ones that
may just be emerging. The specialist requirement thus better
assures that marihuana is used only if no other more
conventional medication is effective. Given that marihuana
is an untested drug, this is a substantial and compelling
state interest. So too is compliance with international
conventions that are designed to restrict the use of drugs
save for legitimate medical and scientific purposes a state
interest which the specialist requirement also serves.
[143] Moreover, on this record, the Hitzig applicants simply
have not shown that the specialist requirement is a
significant impediment to obtaining a medical exemption...
Thus, on this record we conclude that the specialist
requirement does not constitute an undue constraint on the
individual's ability to get a medical exemption and
represents a fair balance between the interests of the
individual and the state.

55. Recently, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court ruled that a
person is not exempted from compliance with the MMAR merely
because they have encountered some difficulty in obtaining a
prescription from a doctor.

56. In this case, the evidence reveals that the Applicant
has made only a minimal effort to comply with the regime.
The Applicant has not been examined by a medical specialist
since 1997 and claims that he cannot "trust neurologists
when all they're interested in is lobectomy." The Applicant
has not approached any medical specialist for assistance
since 1997 but the Applicant unsuccessfully asked his family
physician for assistance. The Applicant has not made any
attempts to find any other family physician to support his
application. Furthermore, the Applicant's legal
representative, John Turmel, has advised the Applicant not
to make any efforts to find a doctor to support his
application since Mr. Turmel believes that it is the duty of
Health Canada to persuade the Applicant's family physician
to support his application. After the Ontario Court of
Appeal released its Hitzig decision, the Applicant's
exemption under S.56 of the CDSA was due to expire on May 31
2004. In anticipation of this expiration of his exemption,
on Feb 19 2004, the Applicant telephoned Health Canada and
indicated that he refused to find a doctor to sign his
application for an ATP. On cross-examination, the Applicant
stated that he does not "want to worry about my brains
coming out" and objects to having "to go back to criminals
[i.e. doctors] to get further assaulted," and objects to the
MMAR requirement that he provide medical authorization.

57. The evidence also reveals that the MMAR regime is
working well

JCT: A thousand and a half out of a population of several
million who use it medically and a lawyer calls that
"working well." Working well at deterring users, perhaps.

CR: and is effective in providing ill persons with the
marihuana that they desire.

JCT: Very few ill persons.

CR: Since July 1 2005, the Marihuana Medical Access Division
receives... same stats.

PART III - ADDITIONAL ISSUES

58. The Respondent Her Majesty the Queen has been improperly
named. Under Section 23(1) of the Crown Liability and
Proceedings Act, the only appropriate Respondent in a
proceeding of this nature is the Attorney General.

JCT: In the nature of a Criminal Code Section 24
application? First we've heard of this.

CR: PART IV - ORDER REQUESTED

59. The Respondent requests the following relief:

(a) An order dismissing the Applicant's application for the
return of a controlled substance

(b) An order granting costs to the Respondent, and

(c) Such relief as this Honourable Court determines to be
just.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Dated at Toronto this 13th day of March 2007.

Christopher Leafloor
Of Counsel for the Respondent
Her Majesty the Queen

JCT: Her Majesty the Queen wants Terry to pay costs?


--
Abolitionist 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 519-753-0645 USENET: can.politics

JCT: Canada Post seized marijuana destined for Terry Parker
and he's now pursuing a Section 24 application for the
return of a controlled substance. I've already published his
Written Representations and the Crown (CR:) has now
responded with its Factum. It's 36 pages so I'll abridge or
paraphrase some parts and leave out the notes.

                   ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
                     (Criminal Division)

Between:

                       Terrance Parker
                                                    Applicant

                             and

                    Her Majesty the Queen
                                                   Respondent

                     RESPONDENT'S FACTUM

March 13 2007


CR: PART I - RESPONDENT'S STATEMENT AS TO FACTS

1. In this proceeding, the applicant, Terrance Parker, has
applied to a justice, pursuant to Section 24 of the CDSA for
the return to him of marijuana that he claims is his and had
been discovered by Canada Post and seized by the police. The
Respondent opposes this application.

1. RESPONDENT'S POSITION ON APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF FACT

2. The Respondent disagrees with the allegations of fact
contained in the Applicant's Written Representations.

JCT: I wonder what facts they disagree with.

CR: 2. ADDITIONAL FACTS RELIED UPON BY THE RESPONDENT

3. The Respondent relies on the following facts.

(a) R. v. Parker (Ontario Court of Appeal)
------------------------------------------

4. On Dec 10, 1997, Sheppard J. stayed proceedings..
concluded Applicant required marijuana to control epilepsy
and the prohibition against marijuana infringed on the
Applicant's rights under section 7 of the Charter. The judge
read into the legislation an exemption for persons
possessing or cultivating marijuana for their "personal
medically approved use.

5. On appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal concluded...
Applicant needed marijuana to control his epilepsy and that
prohibition on the cultivation and possession of marihuana
was unconstitutional... The Court disagreed with Sheppard's
remedy of reading into the legislation an exemption for
medical use, stating that this was a matter for Parliament
to resolve.

JCT: Yet fixing it when the first Parker Court of Appeal said
Parliament had to do it is what the Hitzig Court said it
did.

CR: The Court, therefore, declared the prohibition against
possession of marijuana in subsection 4(1) of the CDSA to be
invalid, but suspended the declaration for one year to
provide the Government with an opportunity to respond. In
addition, the Court ordered that Parker is "exempt from the
marijuana prohibition in s.4 during the period of suspended
invalidity for possession of marijuana for his medical
needs. The Applicant knew that this exemption applied for
only twelve months.

JCT: And if the Court cancelled his S.7 cultivation
exemption from Sheppard as the Crown infers, they did not
also replace it to protect Parker against the continuing
marijuana prohibition in S.7. Applicant's S.7 cultivation
protection was never replaced nor removed during the year of
suspended invalidity of S.4 possession.

CR: (b) Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR)
-----------------------------------------------

6. [... On July 30 2001, the Government enacted the
Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR). The MMAR
provided seriously ill persons with a process by which they
could obtain an authorization to possess marijuana (ATP)

JCT: I guess the fact the Hitzig Court did rule, before
fixing it, that the MMAR did NOT provide a proper exemption
process is one of our facts they disagree with if they now
state that the malfunctioning MMAR did provide a process for
exemption.

CR: and a personal-use-production license (PPL) to permit
the production for medical purposes or a designated-person
production license (DPL) to permit a designated person to
grow for an ATP holder....

(c) Health Canada's efforts to assist the Applicant
---------------------------------------------------

7. [... At the end of this twelve-month period, on July 30
2001, the MMAR were enacted so as to cure the constitutional
invalidity identified by the Court of Appeal.

JCT: And the Hitzig Court eventually ruled that the MMAR had
not cured the problem on time and that the invalidation of
the S.4 CDSA prohibition on possession had taken effect on
Aug. 1 2001 until they fixed it on Oct 7 2003.

CR: The following day, on July 31, 2001, the Applicant's
constitutional exemption expired.

JCT: But his protection under his S.7 exemption still
remained.

CR: Thus, as of July 31 2001, the government and the
Applicant believed that the Applicant was once again subject
to the prohibition on the possession of marijuana.

JCT: But John Turmel was celebrating with Terry Parker that
there was no more prohibition to threaten Parker because the
MMAR had not complied in safetying him from it on time as
the Parker Court had ordered. Since we were celebrating the
Terry Parker Day Declaration two years before the Hitzig
Court of Appeal granted the Terry Parker Day Declaration is
indicator that though the government may have believed he
was once again subject to the prohibition, Parker believed
his engineer who knew the prohibition had been invalidated
by a fumble in the end zone by the Ministry of Justice.

CR: 8. Commencing on July 23 and Aug 8 2001, the Applicant
began to take steps to ensure that he would not be charged
with the offence of possession of marihuana. In particular,
the Applicant's counsel wrote to Health Canada to request
that the Applicant be granted an extension of his exemption
from the offence prohibiting the possession of marijuana.

JCT: Like all lawyers, he didn't know that his victory had
just taken effect on Terry Parker Day 2001. Because the
lawyer who won the declaration of invalidity didn't realize
his victory had taken effect doesn't mean it had not, the
Hitzig Court said it had, only Harnett didn't know it. So,
he sought protection for Parker thinking the prohibition was
valid just as I later sought for Parker knowing it was not
but also knowing that the cops busting Parker didn't know it
yet. Neat that only Engineer John Turmel knew it was invalid
from the fact Parker had been left unprotected without
needing validation by a higher court like all the lawyers
and judges did. If Parker wasn't protected, it didn't work
on time. Real hard to bet on. Not.

CR: 9. On Sep 14, 2001, Health Canada notified the Applicant
that he had been granted, pursuant to S.56 of the CDSA, a
six-month exemption from the laws that prohibit the
possession of marijuana to give him an opportunity to apply
for an ATP exemption to expire on March 14 2002.

JCT: Six weeks too late, they gave him an exemption while
the law was dead and now say that makes the law alive.

CR: 10. On Nov 14 2001, his lawyer Aaron Harnett reported to
Health Canada that Parker had found a neurologist and would
file. On cross-examination, Parker claimed the neurologist
was located not in Toronto but in Vancouver.

(d) Hitzig et al. v. Canada (Ontario Superior Court)
-----------------------------------------------------

11. On March 13 2002, the day before the expiry of his
exemption, Applicant commenced an Ontario Superior Court
application requesting a continuation of his "constitutional
exemption from the offence of possession of marijuana and an
order "declaring prohibition of marijuana in the CDSA to be
of no force and effect."

JCT: Of course, this isn't what Parker asked for. Parker
already won the declaration it to be of no force and
effect, suspended 1 year. The Crown deleted the actual
request in Parker Two which was for a declaration of
invalidity "SINCE TERRY PARKER DAY Aug. 1 2001 by cutting
out the "since Terry Parker Day Aug. 1 2001." Then again,
the crown titled this section "Hitzig" when Hitzig wasn't
even filed until May. We're still in March with Pitt J.

CR:On March 15 2002, Pitt J. granted the Applicant his
requested extension of his "constitutional exemption" as
granted by the Ontario Court of Appeal.

JCT: Under its jurisdiction over Criminal Code cases!!!

CR: The federal Crown then moved to set aside the order of
Justice Pitt.

JCT: Under the Civil Rules of Procedure because you there is
no provision setting aside criminal jurisdiction orders.
That must one of our facts the Crown disagrees with. If they
disagree with it, they drop it from their story line!!

CR: On April 19 2002, Chapnik J. set aside the Order of Pitt
J.

JCT: There is no Criminal Code jurisdiction for one
equivalent Superior Court judge to set aside the Order of
another Superior Court judge extending the criminal
jurisdiction of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Notice how the
Crown continues to evade the fact they used the Civil Rules
of Practice to get one judge to set aside an equal judge.

CR: The Applicant then sought to appeal Chapnik

JCT: Sure, I fought back in the kangaroo civil courts though
I knew Pitt could only be set aside by Criminal Court of
Appeal. Not even the Hitzig Court's civil opinion on
Chapnik's ultra vires setting aside of Pitt matters.

CR: and sought a stay pending appeal.

JCT: Sure, I not only appealed in Civil Kangaroo Court, I
also sought a stay from Civil Kangaroo Court.

CR: On May 3, 2002, Feldman J.A. refused the request for a
stay. On Feb 13 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed
the Applicant's application for leave to appeal.

JCT: Sure, I not only appealed, sought a stay
unsuccessfully, I appealed that too. If you're going to give
them a fight, may as well be with everything you've got.

CR: On cross-examination, however, the Applicant stated that
he still believes that the Pitt J. decision continues to
authorize him to possess and cultivate marihuana, for the
reason that he believes that Chapnik J. did not legally set
aside the decision of Pitt J.

12. The substantive issues raised by the Applicant's March
13 2002 application were heard together with two other
applications, one of which had been commenced by John Turmel
and Marc Paquette, and another which had been commenced by
Hitzig and others. In the fall of 2002, these three civil
applications concerning marijuana for medical reasons were
heard together by Lederman J. of the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice.

JCT: Since Turmel wasn't sick, obviously, the Turmel gang
weren't there with Parker to prove prohibition was
unconstitutionally bad, again, but to prove that it was
dead, that the Parker Declaration of invalidity in 2000 had
taken effect on Terry Parker Day 2001. Only the Hitzig
applications were about the Marijuana Medical Access
Regulations. Parker, Turmel-Paquette were about the
invalidity of the law having taken place. Nothing medical
about our appeals since Turmel wasn't sick, right? I guess
the fact Turmel wasn't there on medical use is an
inconvenient fact that the Crown would replace with the
notion healthy Turmel was wrong in with a bunch of sick
people. Which is why the Lederman decision throwing me out
because I'm not sick is so funny. It was never about my
being sick!

CR: On Jan 9 2003, Lederman concluded absence of legal
supply for authorized persons was inconsistent with
fundamental justice.

JCT: So the legislation that was to provide the necessary
exemption within 1 year, (by Terry Parker Day) did not work.
And did not work on time... But Lederman J. did not note the
absence of access for Parker as he dismissed Parker's
application with no reasons.

CR: Lederman declared the MMAR to be unconstitutional and
invalid on grounds the framework failed to adequately
resolve issues related to source and supply of marijuana.

JCT: And the Crown didn't stop busting people once they
found out that the MMAR exemption process had failed to
comply to save the prohibition on time.

CR: However, Lederman J. suspended the declaration for six
months

JCT: So they could keep busting people under the
unconstitutional prohibition because it wasn't official yet.

CR: so as to permit the Government of Canada an opportunity
to amend the MMAR or otherwise provide for a legal source.

JCT: And fixing it too late means what? We'll find out
later. So he told everyone the MMAR exemption didn't save
the CDSA prohibition on time but that it's not official and
it can't be said that the MMAR didn't work because he
suspended his ruling. So it cannot be said that the CDSA
became invalid even though everyone knows the MMAR didn't
work. He's saying he can give them more time to fix the MMAR
to save the CDSA from dying two years earlier.

CR: 13. All parties appealed the decision of Lederman.

JCT: Another inconvenient fact they keep repeating it.
Parker, Turmel-Paquette appealed, the others responded and
cross-appealed. We pointed this out, the Crown's version of
that fact is an out-and-out falsehood. Since the Crown
insists on mis-labelling the participants, it must be
important to them to I'll make sure to point out the
repeated falsehood.

CR: (e) Hitzig et al. v. Canada (Ontario Court of Appeal)
-----------------------------------------------------

JCT: And notice how they mis-labeled the whole Pitt issue
under the not-then-existing Hitzig case. Just like the Court
of Appeal changed the name from Appellant Parker et al to
Respondent Hitzig et al. Just to give credit for the Terry
Parker Declaration present therein to sham-victor Alan
Young's Hitzig case.

CR: 14. On July 8 2003, pending the appeals of Lederman,
Health Canada developed policies to ensure the MMAR remained
valid.

JCT: The Crown admits the law used to be "invalid" but so it
now remains "valid?" This is bad English with a sleazy
purpose. Things can only "remain" what they "used to be," or
they revert back. You don't remain something different than
you started out being.

CR: The MMAR provided an option for obtaining access to
seeds and dried marihuana.

15. While the parties waited for the appeals, Health Canada
continued to grant the Applicant, pursuant to S.56 of the
CDSA, exemptions so as to provide further opportunities to
apply for an ATP.

16. The Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in the
Hitzig matter on Oct 7 2003.

JCT: And changed the style of cause from "Appellant Parker
and others" so it would be called "Respondent Hitzig and
others." When was the last time you ever heard of a decision
named after the Respondent and not the Appellant. Of course,
they didn't want to give credit for the Terry Parker Day
declaration to Terry Parker who had asked for it but to Alan
Young's Hitzig group who had not asked for it.

CR: This decision contains rulings in regard to three
related appeals, one of which was concerning Lederman J.'s
ruling in respect of the Applicant's March 13 2002
application (docket C39738). The Court dismissed the
Applicant's appeal and thus denied Applicant's request that
the court continue his personal exemption.

JCT: But then admitted the Terry Parker Day declaration
within the Hitzig appeal so Alan Young could claim his case
proved the law had been invalid since Terry Parker Day.

CR: In addition, it dismissed  the Applicant's attempt to
review the April 19 2002 decision of Chapnik J (docket
number 38113).

JCT: Notice that the reason was so ludicrous that he even
can't state why. The court said Chapnik was right to set
aside Pitt because the application had not been served
properly. Since Superior Courts can dispense with service
altogether, how can there be improper service? And there had
not been improper service! Terry had properly served his
documents!

CR: The Court of Appeal determined that the MMAR were
constitutionally defective and... and remedied the
constitutional deficiencies it had identified...

JCT: They fixed the MMAR two years too late to save the CDSA
prohibition that had become of no force and effect.

CR: 17. As the Court remedied the deficiencies, the MMAR
continued to be constitutional...

JCT: Usually, when you "continue to be," you continue to be
what you were before your statement. So if you say "it
continued to be constitutional," it presumes it continues to
be what it used to be. In this case, it was unconstitutional
and then continued to be constitutional! Har har har har.
So, to use the words "continue to be," you have to apply to
it say it continued to be "unconstitutional". Or it reverted
to constitutional. Since it used to be unconstitutional, it
now being constitutional cannot be construed to mean
"continued to be constitutional." Again, sleazy rhetoric
trying to evade that the law used to be dead. If it
"continues to be" alive, it presumes it to have been alive
to continue to be alive. So just like our real situation could not
earlier "remain" valid when it used to be invalid, it cannot
now "continue to be" constitutional when it used to be
unconstitutional.

CR: and thus the prohibition on the possession of marijuana
under section 4 of the CDSA continued to be constitutional
as well.

JCT: See. From being "unconstitutional," it continued being
"constitutional."

CR: [166] The declarations of invalidity we propose remove
the single unconstitutional barrier to eligibility and
sufficient barriers to supply that ATP holders will be
reasonably able to meet their medical needs from licit
sources. As a result, the MMAR as modified become a
constitutionally sound medical exemption to the marihuana
prohibition in s. 4 of the CDSA...

JCT: Become constitutional 2 years too late.

CR: (f) Hitzig et al. v. Canada (Supreme Court of Canada)
-----------------------------------------------------

18. Hitzig and others sought leave to appeal. On May 6 2004,
their application for leave to appeal was dismissed by the
Supreme Court of Canada.

JCT: To get the federal Ministry of Health supervised by
Provincial courts. Har har har har. Only Federal Courts can
supervise Federal Ministries. It got laughed out of court.

CR: 19. John Turmel's application for leave to appeal was
dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

JCT: As abandoned without adjudication of the issues raised.

CR: 20. On Nov 25 2005, Parker's application for leave to
appeal was dismissed. Applicant's request for
reconsideration was dismissed on July 5 2006.

JCT: As abandoned without adjudication of the issues raised.

CR: (g) The Government's response to the Hitzig decision
----------------------------------------------------

21. The Government responded by amending the MMAR to provide
authorized persons access to marijuana and seeds.

22. Health Canada decided to amend the MMAR in phases... to
ensure persons who are authorized.. have reasonable access
to a legal source. The four differences....

23. Since the fall of 2003, policy development.. guided by
vision of.. a) a government source.. b) distribution through
pharmacies.. c) keeping abreast of risks and benefits, d)
improved surveillance to monitor safety..

24. In Jan 2004, Health Canada's phase 2 had the elimination
of the need for a specialist to sign the medical
declaration.

JCT: Finally, one of the most odious and insulting features
of the exemption system I had objected to had been removed.
Professionals having to get a second opinion is unheard of!

CR: 25. Since July 1st, 2005, 75 new applications to possess
every month, 78 renewal applications,

JCT: People with permanent diseases still have to apply
every year just to make it hard on them and their doctors.

CR: The average processing time is 8 weeks.

JCT: They had stalled Don Appleby and Barry Burkholder for 2
years. And we had won an ultimatum for an answer in 30 days.

CR: As of Nov 2006, 1603 persons had an ATP, 701 in Ontario
supported by 431 practitioners. As of Nov 3 2006, 989
persons hold a Production license and 136 hold a DPL.

26. More Stats.

(h) Health Canada's consultations with stakeholders
---------------------------------------------------

27-30.

(i) The Applicant has not applied for an ATP under the MMAR
-----------------------------------------------------------

31. The Applicant has not been examined by a medical
specialist since 1997 and claims that he cannot "trust
neurologists when all they're interested in is lobectomy."
The Applicant has not approached any medical specialist for
assistance since 1997 but the Applicant unsuccessfully asked
his family physician to support his application for an ATP
under the MMAR. Furthermore, the Applicant's legal
representative, John Turmel, has advised the Applicant not
to make any efforts to find a doctor to support his
application since Mr. Turmel believes that it is the duty of
Health Canada to persuade the Applicant's family physician
to support his application.

32. After the Hitzig decision, the Applicant's exemption was
due to expire on May 31 2004. Although the Applicant's
affidavit asserts he had not received notice that his
exemption would expire, on cross-examination he acknowledged
that he had been informed earlier that his exemption would
expire in May 2004. In anticipation of this expiration of
his exemption, on Feb 19 2004, the Applicant telephoned
Health Canada and indicated that he refused to find a doctor
to sign his application for an ATP. On cross-examination,
the Applicant stated that he could go to see a doctor, but
that he does not "want to worry about my brains coming out"
and objects to having "to go back to criminals to get
further assaulted," and objects to the MMAR requirement that
he provide medical authorization for the following reason:
"Well, I am upset.. As you can see, I've been kicked out of
school, college, jobs, got these seizures and now, I've got
to go back to these - these monsters for doctors to get
permission that they won't provide me. I mean, I'm sorry,

continued...


--
Abolitionist 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 519-753-0645 USENET: can.politics

JCT: The Court of Appeal ducked whether the Section 7
prohibition on cultivation of marijuana was invalid by
saying it didn't apply to my Section 5(2) possession for the
purpose of trafficking to the Prime Minister charge. But
Pierre was charged with both and did challenge his S.7 and
not his S.5(2) charge. So the court couldn't duck it.

DATE: 20070228
ROLE: C44683, C44684

COUR D'APPEL DE L'ONTARIO

ENTRE: SA MAJESTE LA REINE (intime)
c.
REAL MARTIN et PIERRE DROUIN

JCT: Notice they have the case numbers in right order,
Pierre Drouin's C44683 and Real Martin's C44684 but get the
names linked to those numbers backwards, Martin then Drouin,
even though I'd specifically pointed out and asked that the
error be corrected. And they got it backwards anyway!

Unless, of course, there is some advantage in the case not
being named after Health Canada Exemptee Pierre Drouin and
instead being named after non-Exemptee Real Martin. It's
tiring how the court is always fixing things to our
disadvantage. Or the panel missing my explanation of why
Drouin should be first on the style of cause was due to
three simultaneous senior moments. Anyway, it bodes not well
when they can't even keep the names linked respectively to
the right cases.

LE TRIBUNAL: LABROSSE, SHARPE et BLAIR J.C.A.

PROCUREURS: Francois Lacasse et Steve Coroza
Pour Sa Majeste La Reine
Les appellants en personnes

AUDIENCE: fevrier 23 2007
PRONONCEE: fevrier 23 2007

Appel interjete de l'ordonnance du juge N.J. Nadeau de la
cour de justice de l'Ontario datee le 5 decembre 2005.
Appeal from the Order of Judge N.J. Nadeau of the Ontario
Court of Justice dated Dec 5 2005.

INSCRIPTION
ENDORSEMENT

[1] Les appels de Sa Majeste la Reine c. Real Martin et
Pierre Drouin ont ete entendus ensemble. Les appels sont
fondes sur la premisse qu'il n'y a aucune interdiction
relative a la production et a la possession de marijuana en
vue d'en faire le trafic.
[1] The appeals of Her Majesty the Queen v. Real Martin and
Pierre Drouin were heard together. The appeals are founded
on the premise that there is no prohibition relative to the
production and possession of marijuana for the purpose of
trafficking.

JCT: This is called picking on the straw man. Pierre was
charged with Section 7 cultivation and Section 5(2)
possession for the purpose of trafficking like me. He
pointed out that this appeal was for prohibition of the
Section 7 charge, not Section 5(2) that Turmel had lost. But
Ontario's highest Court got it wrong again.

Dans la decision de La Reine c. Turmel, cette cour a rejete
l'argument que l'article 5(2) de la Loi reglementant
certaines drogues et autres substances <<LRCDAS>> L.c. 1996,
c.19 etait invalide et inoperante.
In the R. v. Turmel decision CCC(3e) 533 and Hitzig v.
Canada (2003), O.J. No. 3873, this court rejected the
argument that Section 5(2) of the CDSA was invalid in
inoperative.

JCT: Which is why Pierre didn't try to prohibit his S.5(2)
charge, only his Section 7 charge. Har har har har. How
could the judges get the impression Pierre was challenging
his Section 5(2) charge like Turmel when Pierre even told
them he was only challenging his Section 7 cultivation
charge? More simultaneous senior moments?

[2] En ce qui trait a l'article 7,
[2] As for Section 7,

JCT: Okay, now we're dealing with Pierre's real challenge to
his Section 7 cultivation charge, not the previous challenge
imagined by the court against Section 5(2) which, nowhere,
is mentioned in Pierre's documentation. But at last we're
dealing with the real issue of their appeal.

si no presumons que nous sommes lies par l'affaire de La
Reine c. Krieger (2002) A.J. No 1644 (C.A. Alberta, il est a
noter que la declaration d'invalidite a ete suspendue et par
suite par le reglement sur l'acces a la marijuana a des fins
medicales (RAMFM) D.O.R.S/2001-227 tel qu'indique dans la
decision de cette cour dans Hitzig.
If we presume that we are bound by the Krieger case (2002)
A.J. No 1644 (C.A. Alberta), it must be noted that the
declaration of invalidity was suspended and since then, by
the Marijuana Medical Access Regulations (RAMFM)
D.O.R.S/2001-227 as indicated by this court in Hitzig.

[3] En consequence, les appels sont rejetes.
[3] Consequently, the appeals are dismissed.

JCT: So the Acton declaration of invalidity of Section 7
cultivation prohibition remains suspended by the Crown's
stay pending appeal even after the appeal is dismissed and
the Crown loses its status as appellant! Har har har har.

But it does make Pierre's Krieger challenge quite simple at
the top. Does an appellant's stay continue after the
appellant no longer has appellant's status or have 150,000
people been improperly busted on such a fairy tale pretext
reasoning by Justice in Blunderland.



--
Abolitionist 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 519-753-0645 USENET: can.politics

JCT: I just got the official endorsement of the Ontario
Court of Appeal for my three Prohibition, Certiorari, and
Conviction appeals. Being all consolidated into one case
allowed the court to forget some parts and get their
jurisdiction backwards. My parsing commentary after the
complete short decision:

Date: 20070228
Docket: C45295, C44587, C44588

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) - and - JOHN C.
TURMEL (Appellant)

BEFORE: Justices Labrosse, Sharpe, Blair

COUNSEL: The appellant in person
Steve Coroza and Francois Lacasse for the respondent

HEARD & RELEASED ORALLY: Feb 23 2007

On appeal from the conviction entered on March 10 2006 and
the sentence imposed on March 29 2006 by Justice Paul R.
Belanger

ENDORSEMENT

COURT: [1] In this case the trial judge refused to suspend
the proceedings pending the determination of Mr. Turmel's
appeal on the prerogative remedies and he proceeded with the
trial. Mr. Turmel was convicted and sentenced. His appeals
C44587 and C44588 (the prerogative remedies) are now moot as
he has been convicted and now appeals his conviction.

[2] The appeal is premised on the argument that the
possession for the purpose of trafficking is not an offence
known to law. Mr. Turmel's enthusiastic arguments face and
insurmountable hurdle. This court has already rejected these
types of arguments (see R. v. Turmel (2003) 177 C.C.C. (3d)
333 (Ont.C.A.) and Hitzig v. Canada (2003), 177 C.C.C. (3d)
449 (Ont.C.A.)) 3873 and concluded that these offences
remained in full force and effect. This applies at the time
the appellant is alleged to have committed them. These
decision are binding upon us and we agree with them.

[3] The appellant admitted the Crown's case at trial and was
properly convicted. There is no merit to the argument the
Crown did not properly exercise its discretion in the manner
that it charged with the appellant.

[4] At trial, Mr. Turmel was given full opportunity to
present written argument on any issue he wished to raise
prior to conviction. It is only after his conviction, and
without notice, that he raised the Charge argument he now
asserts. The decision of the trial judge not to exercise his
discretion to hear the Charter issue was properly exercised.

[5] The appeal is dismissed.
Labrosse, Sharpe, Blair JJ.A.

JCT: So now some commentary in preparing for the final three
applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of
Canada.

COURT: ENDORSEMENT
[1] In this case the trial judge refused to suspend
the proceedings pending the determination of Mr. Turmel's
appeal on the prerogative remedies and he proceeded with the
trial.

JCT: Notice they don't mention that both prerogative
remedies were challenges to the judge's jurisdiction.
Certiorari for being in the wrong court, Prohibition for
being in court on a repealed law. If the appeals had been
heard last year (!) when they were adjourned to find French
judges, the trial judge may have lost his jurisdiction. But
the Ontario Court of Appeal registrar delaying those two
appeals for prerogative remedy by one year let the judge
below go forward before finding out whether he had no
jurisdiction or not.

COURT: Mr. Turmel was convicted and sentenced. His appeals
C44587 and C44588 (the prerogative remedies) are now moot as
he has been convicted and now appeals his conviction.

JCT: I wonder if they would have been mooted if I had not
appealed, just counted on getting his jurisdiction
nullified.
Anyway, the court has used the function of the word "moot"
backward. Had the Court of Appeal found Provincial Court had
no jurisdiction over matters of "more than 3 Kilograms,"
Justice Belanger's decision would have been mooted, no
longer necessary, solved. To reverse that so that a lower
court judge can who just goes ahead before the higher court
can rule on his power mootens the challenge to his power.
Pretty incredible to think Justices Labrosse, Sharpe and
Blair, three of Ontario's top judges, could get something so
elementary wrong. What's new from Justice in Blunderland. Of
course, it is a handy pretext to simply pass a fixed case up
the ladder.

COURT: [2] The appeal is premised on the argument that the
possession for the purpose of trafficking is not an offence
known to law.

JCT: While the cultivation and possession offences are not
known to law, possession for an evil intent can't be known
to law either. As Justice Earle-Renton noted, it can't be
illegal to possession for an evil purpose if it's legal to
possess. Always made sense to me but didn't enter the Hitzig
court's thinking. Nor this one's.

COURT: Mr. Turmel's enthusiastic arguments face and
insurmountable hurdle. This court has already rejected these
types of arguments (see R. v. Turmel (2003) 177 C.C.C. (3d)
333 (Ont.C.A.) and Hitzig v. Canada (2003), 177 C.C.C. (3d)
449 (Ont.C.A.)) 3873 and concluded that these offences
remained in full force and effect. This applies at the time
the appellant is alleged to have committed them. These
decision are binding upon us

JCT: They are only binding because Chief Justice Roy
McMurtry did not grant my request for the 5-judge panel
needed to not be bound by the previous 3-judge panel. So my
court was only bound because they wouldn't give me enough
judges to be unbound! How sleazy. I lost because I was
refused the right number of judges!

COURT: and we agree with them.

JCT: Oh, so that makes it all right. Since this 3-judge
court agrees with the previous 3-judge panel, it doesn't
matter that I wasn't given enough judges to deal with the
issue, I'd have lost anyway.

COURT: [3] The appellant admitted the Crown's case at trial

JCT: I admitted the Crown's evidence.

COURT: and was properly convicted.

JCT: Without defence by constitutional challenge or defence
arguments.

COURT: There is no merit to the argument the Crown did not
properly exercise its discretion in the manner that it
charged with the appellant.

JCT: False information on the indictment's okay by them .

COURT: [4] At trial, Mr. Turmel was given full opportunity
to present written argument on any issue he wished to raise
prior to conviction.

JCT: It was written argument on the Section 601 pre-plea
application to quash, not on the after-plea constitutional
motion, not on any after-plea defence argument to the
charge.

COURT: It is only after his conviction, and without notice,
that he raised the Charge argument he now asserts.

JCT: I had prepared a Notice of Application for
Constitutional challenge to be filed only once the charge
had not been quashed and was ruled valid. But since the
judge had already written his after-trial conviction
decision with pre-plea decision, he wouldn't allow the next
defence steps into the proceeding.

My constitutional notice was given right after the decision
on my pre-plea motion to quash when it should have been, not
after conviction, and I gave notice as soon as possible
after the finding out the charge was not going to be quashed
and I was going to have to go to trial. To a trial the judge
had started up before deciding on whether the charge was
valid.
The judge made me plead and heard evidence before ruling on
the pre-plea challenge to the validity of the charge. After
he handed down his ruling on the pre-plea motion, I wanted
to go to the next stage after plea, the constitutional issue
since he had already put in my not guilty plea before the
ruling on the pre-plea motion! Anyway, the judge handed down
a pre-plea decision with the conviction decision. I pointed
out the disjointed proceeding. And now this court agrees
with it. I can't think of a fitter judicial epitaph for this
court than they endorsed what happened to me below!

COURT: The decision of the trial judge not to exercise his
discretion to hear the Charter issue was properly exercised.

JCT: So my constitutional argument that denial of marijuana
for preventative use violates my right doesn't get
considered "properly." Must wait for the next case.

COURT: [5] The appeal is dismissed.

JCT: So Justices Labrosse Sharpe and Blair certify the
disjointed railroading I got in the court below was
righteous. It does make one wonder where judges get their
learning about fairness to so consistently produce such
deviant rulings.
I can't wait to hear how they rationalize Pierre Drouin's
Krieger claim. Probably that the Alberta Court of Appeal
Appellant's Stay of the Acton invalidation continues to hold
off invalidation of the Section 7 prohibition on forever
even after appellant loses the appellant's status as
appellant. The Acton decision delayed by an appellant's stay
after the appellant is no longer the appellant. Har har har
har har. Can't wait to hear it in writing officially.

Stay tuned for more Justice in Blunderland.



--
Abolitionist 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 519-753-0645 USENET: can.politics

Part C: Turmel, Drouin, Martin medpot appeals

Court File No.
M33601, C44684,
C44683, C44587,
C44588, C45295

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
BETWEEN:
                    HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
                                 Applicant on Motion to Quash
                                       (Respondent on Appeal)
                             and
                      PIERRE DROUIN and
                       REAL MARTIN and
                        JOHN C. TURMEL
                               Respondents on Motion To Quash
                                       (Appellants on Appeal)

            FEB 23 2007 TRANSCRIPT COURT OF APPEAL

Justices Labrosse, Sharpe, Blair

JCT: When they came back, Justice Blair asked Crown Steve
Coroza about my being deprived of the chance to present a
defence at my trial or make a constitutional motion. He said
I had not given sufficient notice of my constitutional
motion and that's why Judge Belanger skipped that part of my
pre-trial challenge and went straight to post-trial
sentencing!
Remember, it's supposed to go:
Step 1: Pre-plea Quash motion: usually reserved. Dismissed.
Step 2: Mute Plea of Not Guilty to set trial date.
Step 3: Pre-trial constitutional motion. Dismissed.
Step 4: Trial prosecution.
Step 5: Trial defence,
Step 6: Closing arguments.
Step 7: Conviction: set sentencing hearing date.
Step 8: Sentencing.

In this case, Judge Belanger refused to rule on the motion
to quash the charge as unknown to law, went on with Step 2
and ordered me to plead, before he handed down his ruling on
Step 1. I stood mute refusing to plead to a possible nullity
so he entered "not guilty" to the possible nullity in my
name. The guy won't hand down his ruling on whether it's a
nullity if starting the trial before telling me his
decision. When he finally did handed down his decision on
Step 1, with it came his decision on Step 7, skipping steps
3, 5, 6, my constitutional objection, my defence arguments.

Coroza relied on where Judge Belanger said he expected I
wouldn't be putting in a defence because I had said that I'd
be in "big trouble if the charges weren't quashed" which he
had taken to mean that it was more trouble than I could
handle, it was insurmountable trouble I could never handle,
trouble I could not even try to surmount and so Steps 3, 5
and 6 weren't necessary.

Justice Belanger on Dec 15 does give Turmel the opportunity
to put the argument in writing and gives him 30 days to do
that and gives the Crown another 30 days to respond. Coming
back on March 10 on this issue.

JCT: That was for the quash motion, not the constitutional
one that must await the decision on whether the charge needs
to be faced.

Coroza pointed out he finds me guilty me On March 10. Then I
raised this constitutional issue. He quoted S.111 about need
for proper notice of constitutional question. Yet, would a
lawyer have been denied. He says the Hitzig Court qualified
my argument as the "prophylactic" argument in paragraphs
177. They said no medical evidence presented.

LABROSSE J.A.: Any response?

TURMEL: Yes.

LABROSSE J.A.: Don't forget now, you only have...

TURMEL: No, no, I'm short. I've never been known to be
verbose. On Dec. 15 when I trial opened before Judge
Belanger, I filed an application to Quash, a Section 601
application to quash. I'd already applied for Prohibition
which had been rejected and I'd filed an appeal. I'm in
front of him and asked: can you wait until the Court of
Appeal finish on the Prohibition and the Certiorari? He
says: no I want to go ahead right away.

So I said: okay, Section 601, application to quash and I
handed it in. He said: I'm going to reserve my decision on
that. If you have any more arguments on that, submit them in
writing by these dates. But before I determine the
application to quash the charge, let's take a plea on the
charges that may or may not be there. I said: I don't want
to take a plea until I know if the charge is good or not. He
said: no we're going to start the trial and take the plea
right now. So I stood mute and pursuant to Section 606, he
entered a plea of not guilty for me and then said: now, what
we're going to do is start the trial before I decide whether
the charges are going to be quashed or not.

At that stage, maybe I should have put in my application for
constitutional remedy but I wanted to find out whether the
charges were quashed first and that was going happen on
March 10. So, he said: do you have any objection to these
Crown witnesses putting in their evidence, I said: no, I
don't object to it. As long as I don't lose any rights. I
had admitted everything anyway. None of the witnesses needed
to come up, the Crown agreed that what I'd written in my
previous statements were valid and so, let the witnesses go.

So, I was forced to plead before the decision on the Quash
was handed down, then he heard the evidence before the
decision on the Quash was handed down, but if the Quash
wasn't going to granted and I was going to be forced to go
ahead with the trial, I definitely wanted to wage the issue
of a constitutional right to this herb for prophylactic
reasons. That's an odd word "prophylactic" which sounds not
as effective as increasing my chance survival. Since the
death rate from all these diseases that it would be good for
would be reduced, it's hard to need more than the simple
acceptance of the statistics that if it's good for all these
things, Health Canada begrudgingly said it was, well, it
will prevent them for me too. I'll never have an epileptic
fit if I can have a joint nearby.

So on the basis that I was expecting a decision on the quash
before the trial starts, after the decision on the quash I
will file my constitutional motion, then when the judge
comes back and says: I'm handing down the decision on the
Quash and at the same time I'm convicting you because you
said things don't look if the law isn't invalid. And yes
things don't look good but it didn't mean I didn't want to
enter the fact that I had more when they charged me with
less, or the fact that intend to traffic but intended to
permit inspection. I had what I thought were two valid
defences and I never got a chance to put them in. So I'm
presenting them now on the fact that the judge should have
quashed the charges or not before starting the trial. And by
moving pieces of the trial out of position, I don't think
it's fair for him to hold me responsible, that I give up my
right to a constitutional motion because he jumped ahead of
the after-Quash decision. So, he wants to jump ahead without
handling the Quash, he should have still allowed me the
constitutional motion that came first. And I never got it.
So I'm raising it here.  The "prophylactic" effect.

LABROSSE J.A.: You were sentenced...

TURMEL: Yes, a $1000 fine, 100 hours of community service
which is almost done and 3 years probation.

Clerk: Order.

LABROSSE J.A.: Judge Belanger refused to suspend the trial,
Mr. Turmel now appeals. Appeals C44587, C44588 are now moot.

As to the Appellants argument that S.5(2) was no longer
known to law, this court concluded that this offence remains
in full force and effect at the time that the appellant was
alleged to have committed the offence. These decisions are
binding on us.

JCT: The 3-judge Hitzig panel is only binding on this 3-
judge panel because the Chief Justice refused to let us have
a 5-judge panel when we asked while pointing out we needed a
5-judge court that was not bound by the Hitzig resurrection.
So Justice MrMurtry, by denying me a panel with power to
override Hitzig, fixed the case. During the appeal, I
pointed out how unfair it was to deny us a 5-judge panel
when requested and then use the fact they aren't a 5-judge
panel to deny power. So the case was railroaded from the
start.

So the court ducked the issue of whether the S.7 cultivation
and S.4 possession prohibitions remain invalidated by Krieger
at the Supreme Court of Canada by saying they were bound by
the Turmel [2003] case where the panel of three said the
Code didn't didn't have to be reprinted when some were
struck down, the judges would remember which written laws
were no longer valid and which were still valid.

Luckily, I still get to appeal my R. v. Turmel Section 5(2)
2003 decision that they say bind them here! So the appeal
Justice Binnie threw out as abandoned for want of one late
document last time gets finally in again.

This court says they can't overrule the previous court on
whether the prohibition on possession for evil intent is no
longer being valid when cultivation and possession
prohibitions were not valid at that time.

Remember, when I did my Parliament Hill demo on May 14 2003,
I was busted right in the middle of both the Parker
invalidation of Section 4 prohibition on possession from
Terry Parker Day Aug. 1 2001 to Hitzig Day Oct 7 2003 when
Alan Young says the court resurrected the law, but also the
Krieger invalidation of Section 7 prohibition on cultivation
(and possession, by implication) on Krieger Day Feb 4 2003,
60 days after the Crown lots its appellant's status after
the Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal and they
failed to apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of
Canada.

Just as Aug. 1 2001 was Terry Parker Day after Terry got the
possession invalidated until Oct 7 2003 when Professor Alan
Young got the prohibition re-validated by a court, Feb 4
2003 is Krieger day for Section 7 cultivation up until Oct 7
2003 when they say Hitzig brought Section 7 back to life
too.

So the court severed my Prohibition, Certiorari, Conviction
appeals from Pierre's and Real's Prohibitions so they could
say that my challenges to the judge's jurisdiction become
moot once the judge just goes ahead and takes jurisdiction
anyway!

Wow. Incredible. You heard it here. In the old days, the
lower courts had to wait until the higher courts had dealt
with such appeals for prerogative remedy and they've since
sunk so low that lower courts that ignore them can short-
circuit them too. Har har har har.  Lower courts short-
circuiting higher courts. Only in Ontario. Justice in
Blunderland.

Anyway, they can't ignore dealing with the substantive
challenge to prohibit charges by Pierre Drouin, legitimately
sick now-Medical-Marijuana-Exemptee, on exactly the same
objection to being charged under a law that was struck down
as unconstitutional at the Supreme Court of Canada as mine.

The Court dismissed my Certiorari appeal ruling that the
Crown did not improperly exercise its discretion in charging
me with "not more than 3Kg" when I had "more than 3Kg" and
I've have been due a jury trial if the truth had been told
on the indictment.

The Court ruled that I didn't rate having a constitutional
challenge that healthy people should be able to use cannabis
for prevention of all the diseases it's known to be good for
because I raised it after my conviction. They got that wrong
too.

Actually, I raised it immediately after the decision on my
pre-plea motion and before the judge skipped any defence and
jumped to conviction. So Justice Labrosse has that fact
wrong too. Imagine, handing down a pre-plea ruling and then
the conviction with nothing in between.

The judge's original decision on the Motion to Quash due to
Krieger, which was not mooted by the final decision, was not
dealt with by this Court, probably because it was similar to
the Prohibition argument which was mooted. But even if the
Krieger invalidation was mooted when raised in Prohibition,
it was not mooted when raised in a S.601 motion to quash
which the court failed to realize was there. Lots the
court didn't realize. Lots the Court got wrong. And there's
no quality control for judges who don't know what they're
doing.

So I can bring the Krieger argument back into my case when I
appeal my conviction to the Supreme Court of Canada along
with the refusals for my Certiorari and Prohibition appeals.

DROUIN & MARTIN PROHIBITION APPEALS:

Then they started on Pierre's appeal for Prohibition of
charges. Crown Francois Lacasse spoke in French. He
explained how "Krieger" Judge Acton had struck down The S.7
cultivation prohibition, suspended 1 year. O'Leary J.A.
grants Appellant a stay until further order of the appellate
court. Final Order of Appellate Court dismisses appeal. He
argued that the O'Leary stay had to be lifted and stays
alive until lifted (forever since there is no real
application process to apply to lift an non-real stay in a
closed file. The Appellant's Stay granted by O'Leary keeps
invalidation due to rights violation from taking effect
these last 4 years.

I'd already joked about how the Appellant's stay dies when
the Appellant's status dies when the appeal is dismissed but
that's the Crown alibi for busting the last 4 year's worth
of harmless growing Canadians. And now the Crown is forced
to rely on the Appellant's Stay surviving the end of
Appellant's status! After the last stand that the Supreme
Court of Canada lost too, their appellant's stay is extant
even after they are no longer appellant!

What an alibi. That alibi is the Krieger scandal. Lawyers
coming up with such a sleazily-weak pretext for the busting
to go on because an appellant's stay outlives the appeal!
What a lousy case for the Crown. So what is this "rush-to-
lunch" court going to do?

DROUIN: Premierement, the onze decembre deux mille...
Firstly, on December 11 2000, the court struck down
Cultivation Section 7. After that, on Dec 4 2002, at the
Court of Appeal, the appeal against Acton's S.7 decision is
dismissed. So, as it now goes, I'm claiming Section 7, like
Krieger, charged with Section 7, and like him, Section 5(2).
I'm not appealing here about Section 5(2), only Section 7.
There's absolutely no evidence that I was growing to
traffic.

LABROSSE J.A.: You haven't had your trial yet.

DROUIN: No. I just want to point out that I'm only here for
Section 7, not the Section 5(2).

JCT: Not the Section 5(2) Turmel's charged with that the
court said is valid, the Section 7 Drouin's charged with
that the Supreme Court of Canada said was invalid.

DROUIN: I'm trying to defend myself. Like Krieger, I'm a
medical case. And I'm here to say that Section 7 is dead.
Because, when we were charged, were were charged between
2001 and 2003, while the law was of no force and effect. The
law wasn't in force and effect during those two years and
it's during those two years that we were charged.

JCT: Actually, that's the Parker immunity to Section 4
possession. Pierre and Real actually also have Krieger
immunity because Krieger invalidated Section 7 on Feb 4
2003, they were charged in June 2003, and Alan Young says
his Hitzig court brought them back to life in October 2003.
They Pierre and Real are right in 9-month Krieger Section 7
cultivation invalidation window as well as the 26-month
Parker possession invalidation window too.

DROUIN: The Krieger case where the law was struck down. The
law was suspended. After a year, doesn't it fall dead if
Parliament doesn't bring in new legislation?

LABROSSE J.A.: But the decision striking down the law was
suspended and then that suspension was continued. It was
never lifted. So it's still suspended.

JCT: Remember, I've already pointed out how Krieger can't
apply to lift the Appellant's stay because you can't file an
application after the file is closed. So they're telling us
that the Court should have heard Iovinelli's application to
lift the stay at the end of the hearing which the Court of
Appeal refused to entertain because they knew it died with
the appellant's status. Evidently, these Ontario Court of
Appeal Justices don't know that Appellants' stays pending
appeal lapse with the end of the appeal and think such
imaginary applications can be entertained.

So there's Pierre's perfect case against the Krieger
decision being stayed stated and ready for final appeal.
Wow. And I'm going to have my name on that case with his.
Unless the court unconsolidates the judgments after
consolidating the appeals.

DROUIN: Wasn't that decision made at the Supreme Court?

LABROSSE J.A.: You still have a law while the Krieger ruling
is suspended.

DROUIN: It's the Supreme Court of Canada saying that Krieger
struck down Section 7.

LABROSSE J.A.: Still suspended.

JCT: Isn't the suspension dead after the appeal is finished?

LABROSSE J.A. After the suspension is lifted.

JCT: End of game. That's the whole case. 150,000 Canadians
were busted on the grounds that the Crown's Appellant Stay of
execution from a lower court continues after they've lost
all appeals with no way of applying to fix it. Or not.

DROUIN: I'm going on Krieger killing the law, that's all.

JCT: Crown Lacasse argued that the Krieger invalidation by
the highest court of Alberta was not binding on Ontario,
always forgetting how I pointed out that when the Ontario
Court of Appeal struck down the S.4 possession prohibition,
the federal Crown dropped charges all across Canada, not
just in Ontario. But that's a staple argument from the
Crown. Nothing's ever good anywhere but locally.

The Court finally dismissed their appeals for Prohibition
ruling the Appellant's Stay of the Acton invalidation
was in effect until the MMAR was fixed fixing the flaw so
the law never died.

When one thinks back to the warped rulings of the Hitzig
Court of Appeal that now cover their hands in blood, these
decisions are just more of the same. Three more judges with
the blood of 4 dead epileptics a day on their judicial
consciences. Conscience from lawyers. Har har har har.

Five Applications for Leave to Appeal due by April 23 with
simple issues of appeal against Justice in Blunderland.


--
Abolitionist 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 519-753-0645 USENET: can.politics

>Article #94133 (94164 is last):
>Subject: Re: TURMEL: Given bum's rush by Ontario Court
>From: bo774@... (Kelly Bert Manning)
>Newsgroups: can.legal
>Date: 3 Mar 2007 02:14:49 GMT

KBM:  Well, if the Rush fits then you have to wear it.

JCT: Are you saying my case for the prohibition remaining
repealed despite Alan Young's Hitzig Court saying they were
bringing it back to life deserved being rushed like a bum
out of the establishment by its bouncers?
Young's team of legal beagles got days to present their
losing argument argument that the MMAR should be fixed and I
got an hour to argue the possession law died on Parker Day.

I got the law invalidated by proving the MMAR had failed to
save the CDSA prohibition on time and Young says he won
getting the prohibition revalidated by fixing the MMAR two
years later.

I say only Parliament puts me back in jail once a law has
been struck down, not a shyster leading his gang of
magistrates. Remember, my last medpot cases went right into
the Criminal Code, of national importance. Whether I only
got off the last 4000 Canadians charged while the law was
dead or whether the 100,000 Canadians convicted while the
law was dead should have had their records expunged?

Or are you saying it deserved to lose because I'm Turmel?

> Prohibition of the charges due to Krieger.

KBM: You remind me of Vissini in "The Princess Bride".

JCT: I wish I got your insult even though more cryptic than
your co-name-caller:

>Article #94134 (94164 is last):
>Date: 2 Mar 2007 18:57:50 -0800
>From: w_b_ryan@...
>Newsgroups: can.politics,can.legal,sci.econ,sci.engr
>Discussion subject changed to "The Piss Boy"

"By the way, he thinks he's shaming me while I think
he's helping spread a message many people will
eventually thank me for. I couldn't ask for a better
plug to bring this natural miraculous healer to
everyone's attention, even if from a demented
lunatic. I'm so not ashamed that I even pee a mug
full and chug it in the DVD put out last year at
http://www.turmelmovie.com so it's not as if I'm not
happy to get the message out." John "The Piss Boy" Turmel

JCT: Pseudo Social Credit philosopher William B Ryan's
demented USENET response to every one of my posts in
Canada's "politics" newsgroup, Canada's "legal" newsgroup,
the world's Economic and Engineering Science newsgroups as
well as my USENET blog at alt.fan.john-turmel

Canada's political and legal community and the world's
economics and engineering faculties must be really impressed
by his performance in our battle of wits! Har har har har.

Bert, your contribution is no less juvenile if you can't
back up your analogies. Give me your best shot.
Or was that it?


--
Abolitionist 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 519-753-0645 USENET: can.politics

Court File No.
M33601, C44684,
C44683, C44587,
C44588, C45295

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
BETWEEN:
                    HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
                                 Applicant on Motion to Quash
                                       (Respondent on Appeal)
                             and
                      PIERRE DROUIN and
                       REAL MARTIN and
                        JOHN C. TURMEL
                               Respondents on Motion To Quash
                                       (Appellants on Appeal)

            FEB 23 2007 TRANSCRIPT COURT OF APPEAL

Justices Labrosse, Sharpe, Blair

Part B:

TURMEL: Okay. So then I wrote to the Crown Attorney and I
said: hey, 100,000 people were illegally convicted while the
law was invalid, the Court of Appeal says the period of
invalidation was over 26 months. Why didn't you erase those
convictions? No answers. You have the power to Order them
to fix that. I'm asking.

So finally, the Supreme Court of Canada dismisses Krieger.
So here's Pierre and Real, both medical users, Pierre now
has a medical exemption, no better way to prove you're sick
than getting an exemption after you've been busted. And
other cases recently where people who were sick and got
busted got exemptions and were let off the hook. Like the
Court in Hitzig said, just prove to the judges you're sick
and we'll let you go. Which is what they've been doing.

Well, in Pierre's case, he wouldn't have been busted if the
Crown Attorney hadn't said that Section 7 remains alive
because of this lousy stay. So he is a victim of the Krieger
scandal by Crown Attorney who did not reflect the Krieger
decision in the new Criminal Code. Now when judges strike
down a law, which you have the power to do, a bad law, and
the government doesn't change the law in the Criminal Code,
I complained. I said: hey, we're supposed to have a struck
interpretation of criminal statutes, which means you have to
write it down right, and when I appealed because they didn't
do something right, the court tells me: no need to change
the written law, we'll remember which laws are no longer
valid. That was the gist of my decision in Turmel. I said:
Look, you should have changed Section 4 to exempt marijuana
but you didn't. So how do you make Section 4 ineffective if
marijuana is still on a list of banned substances if you
don't exempt it over here? It has to be negated over there.
And that was the argument, saying that because they failed
to reflect a change in the Criminal Code, that meant it had
to have happened somewhere, because it's wrong for the
courts to say: we'll remember which written laws don't
count. Which is what my case at the Ontario Court of Appeal
told me. And I never got the chance to appeal that. Maybe
again. So, that was the Turmel case they rejected me. I say
you've got to reprint the new laws when courts strike down
bad ones, and they don't, and they keep enforcing it. So, to
say the courts will remember which laws aren't there
anymore, that's really bad and can't be right.

Finally, when I asked if the Court would please write down
on the Order that the law has been resurrected, it's no
longer in violation of the constitution and the prohibition
is in full force again, Justice Doherty wouldn't put it on
his Order. We don't even have an Order saying that the law
is valid again. We've got to go to a decision with reasons.
And we asked for the Order. You Court want to say that
you're bringing the law back to life, doing Parliament's
job, write it down. And he wouldn't.

Finally, the Hitzig Application for Leave to the Supreme
Court of Canada, they wanted supervision of Health Canada
and got thrown out. And finally, Supreme Court of Canada
ends Krieger, so it's over now.

And the only excuse the Crown has to continue busting is the
fact that the stay from the functus officio Court of Appeal
is still alive. And that's the only excuse they've got for
putting him through this, and every other sick person out
there.

So, June 9 charges withdrawn in Toronto for 3 people who
argued the Krieger exemption. June 15 Ed Martin's possession
charge withdrawn. June 17 Sandra Kramer's possession charge
is withdrawn.

Oct 7, the Supreme Court of Canada applications. I did my
appeals to the Supreme Court which were thrown out by
Justice Binnie as abandoned for lack of paperwork. And then
finally, Oct 28, Mr. Drouin made an application to quash his
charges on the basis of Krieger and rejected by Judge
Nadeau. Because you can only appeal the Quash at the end of
trial, he went with his Prohibition. Then, for Mr. Martin as
well. Finally, they lost their Quash, but one interesting
aspect: Out in Alberta where there was another cultivation
prosecution going on, Cornelssen, the Crown Attorney from
the Krieger case admitted that he didn't ask for a Section
65 stay because the defence attorney jumped up to make a
motion to lift the stay.

And he admitted that the judges refused to entertain any
other motions under the Alberta Court Act. And he was asked
why he didn't apply for a Supreme Court of Canada stay. He
said: Because the defence jumped up and did not get their
stay lifted. So, the imaginary stay is still there, because
of the Crown mistake? Whatever. The stay died and the Acton
decision took effect when the Alberta Court of Appeal became
functus officio and shut down their doors and that's when
Section 7 and Section 4 prohibitions died for everybody in
Canada.

Then, after they had lost their Quashes and couldn't do
anything about that yet, they filed Prohibitions, Mr. Drouin
and Mr. Martin to prohibit on the grounds of the Krieger.
And then finally, I was brought to court. I had done my
Prohibition earlier, and with the Certiorari because I was in
the wrong court, on November 28 of 2005 that Justice MacLeod
dismissed them and we are now here on those two, and Justice
Belanger then handed down his decision on the pre-plea
motion to Quash, then concluded the trial and found me
guilty. No constitutional motion, no defence put in.

So I'm here on the grounds I should be able to argue a
constitutional issue that health, prevention, it's a valid
right. And that's basically it.

Section 7 has basically died for these fellows. They
have valid medical reasons but were put through the wringer
while Section 7 was invalid since 2002. And we want a
Krieger Day Declaration. Like the Court in Hitzig said:
Yeah, we agree that the prohibition became invalid in 2001.
We need you to say: Yeah, we agree that the Section 7 became
invalid in Alberta in 2002 which is persuasive on all of us
everywhere too. Just like your Hitzig and Parker decisions
were persuasive all over the country as well.

Fine, so that's it for the Prohibition. That is the
arguments for the death and the fact that the Parliament
never brought the statutes, and re-enacted new statutes,
after they were deemed repealed pursuant to the
Interpretation Act. So, that basically is the argument for
Prohibition, in the Drouin-Martin-Turmel appeal.

LABROSSE J.A. You're all finished?

TURMEL: Well, for this appeal. There's two more appeals that
are short.

LABROSSE J.A.: You're not arguing for Mr. Drouin and Martin.

TURMEL: No. I'm making the same argument. I'm with them.

LABROSSE J.A.: We asked you to deal with your appeal.

TURMEL: I've got three of them. I gave you the argument in
my first appeal.

LABROSSE J.A.: You have one appeal.

TURMEL: No. I have three of them. I have three different
judges. That's the point. The Crown got the right to
consolidate their factum, mix all three of my appeals
together including theirs.

LABROSSE J.A.: That's right.

TURMEL: But if you look at

LABROSSE J.A.: You have one appeal before us and it's the
appeal from the conviction.

JCT: The third conviction appeal was assigned 0 minutes for
argument!!! I have to vent a little resentment here. The
last time I had a Big Five at the Court of Appeal in 2003
with the Hitzig crew, the court took 3 full days and none of
those appeals involved penal sanctions. Now, we're being
allowed only minutes. So lawland Ontario gives lawyers more
time than self-defenders. Pay for a lawyer and the court
gives you more time!

TURMEL: Their appeal...

LABROSSE J.A.: No no. Your appeal is on your own...

TURMEL: But I've got exactly the same Prohibition as them...

LABROSSE J.A.: You've spent 40 minutes to argue your appeal.

TURMEL: I've got three.

LABROSSE J.A.: You've only got one.

TURMEL: I've got one with them and I've got two alone. I've
got two appeals alone. Certiorari's got nothing to do with
them. My conviction's got nothing to do with them.

LABROSSE J.A.: But you've been convicted...

TURMEL: I know but that's a different appeal. They're not
convicted. They're Prohibitions.

LABROSSE J.A.: That's why....

TURMEL: We, we just, we're finishing the Prohibition appeal.

LABROSSE J.A.: You were given 40 minutes for your appeal.
You're not acting for Mr. Drouin or Mr. Martin and you were
given 40 minutes for your appeal from your conviction by
Justice Belanger.

TURMEL: I argued the appeal from the decision refusing
Prohibition and because they're with me, it's the big one.

JCT: And also, it's the same amount of time we were given
before the addition of the conviction appeal. No wonder they
put 0 minutes on the letter for the conviction appeal. They
meant it. "Let's consolidate in the last appeal and give
no more time." If I wanted to argue against my conviction, I
was going to have to give up some time out of our
Prohibition appeal! Lucky for the Crown that consolidating
another case got me no extra time to argue it.

LABROSSE J.A.: Yes, you can argue as you wish, we're not
going to tell you what to argue.

TURMEL: My conviction appeal is not long. And my certiorari
appeal is not long. But the Prohibition appeal with these
two is long.

LABROSSE J.A.: Now you're at the end of your 40 minutes.

TURMEL: Of the first appeal.

LABROSSE J.A.: I'm asking you to conclude your argument.

TURMEL: Well I still have two more appeals, short ones, to
deal with.

LABROSSE J.A.: No you don't.

TURMEL: I have MacLeod and Belanger to go.

LABROSSE J.A.: No, it's only Belanger you're appealing from.

TURMEL: No, I'm appealing from MacLeod.

LABROSSE J.A.: Crown.

COROZA: He has three appeals in the court.

LABROSSE J.A.: But they were consolidated.

COROZA: They were consolidated. And there's a motion to
quash two of those appeals.

JCT: So there must be more there must be more than one
appeal if the Crown has a motion to quash two of three. Har
har har har.

LABROSSE J.A.: The appeals from Prohibition and Certiorari.

COROZA: The appeals from Prohibition and Certiorari, that's
our motion to quash.

LABROSSE J.A.: Which are now moot because he was convicted.

JCT: Bingo. So if a judge ignores challenges to his
jurisdiction and just goes ahead despite appeals for
those challenges and does it, it mootens, nullifies (short
circuits) the challenges to jurisdiction! Wow. A judge
wouldn't have done it if he didn't have the jurisdiction to
do it so he has jurisdiction to do it. Where have we heard
that rationale before?

Notice Pierre and Real's Judge Nadeau is awaiting the ruling
on the challenges to his jurisdiction before proceeding. All
he has to do is, like Belanger, proceed despite the
challenge to his jurisdiction and kill the challenge. His
jurisdiction is established just by going ahead and doing
it. Great legal precedent.

It's like using the meaning of "moot" backwards. If the
Court of Appeal granted the Certiorari or Prohibition, it
would make Belanger's decision on conviction moot. But it's
hard to see how the lower court decision can make the higher
court decision moot. Justice in Blunderland.

COROZA: That's our position. So in essence, our position is
that the only appeal that should be litigated is C45295
which is the conviction appeal.

Clerk: Order....
Clerk: Court now resumes.

LABROSSE J.A.: Due to the misunderstanding due to the
number of appeals going on,

JCT: The court was wrong about it being one appeal, I was
right about it being three.

LABROSSE J.A.: you only have one solitary appeal but we'll
give you another 10 minutes to argue anything with respect
to any subject you want for that appeal. You understand me?

TURMEL: Yes.

JCT: Five minutes for my certiorari appeal against MacLeod
and five minutes for my appeal against conviction. What was
the rush? A good lunch special? Talk about not wanting to
give me a just hearing.

TURMEL: Well, as for conviction, I'll deal with the
application for certiorari first.

JCT: Keep in mind, this is the Ontario's highest court
deigning to spend 5 minutes on this appeal. I'll have to
keep it down to a sound bite they might be able to follow
since they don't seem to want much of the facts.

TURMEL: This is from the Factum in the application to the
Superior Court and it is in the appeal book for Certiorari
right now on page 55 and it points out a decision of the
Saskatchewan Court of Appeal which points out that the judge
has absolute jurisdiction when there is under 3 kilograms of
marijuana. If the subject matter is in an amount greater
than 3 kilograms of marijuana, there is no choice for the
Crown, he has to give an election to the person to see
whether they want to cede jurisdiction to the lower court or
not and have a jury trial.

LABROSSE J.A.: You made that argument before Judge Belanger?

TURMEL: No, I made that argument originally, first of all, I
made an application for particulars. I wanted them to change
the indictment from saying "charged with not more than 3
kilograms," to drop the not. Because I had more. I didn't
want a lie on the face of the indictment.

The Crown argued that like when they can apply different
charges to the same set of facts, there's a body, it can be
"Murder One," "Murder Two," "Manslaughter,"

LABROSSE J.A.: I asked you if you argued it before Justice
Belanger?

TURMEL: No, I argued it before Justice Wright before trial
in a pre-plea motion for particulars to change, amend the
indictment, to drop the word "not." And that was refused.
When Justice Wright would amend it, I went to the Superior
Court for an Order of Certiorari saying I shouldn't be in
the lower court that doesn't have jurisdiction over "Plus 3
Key" me. I want out. And Justice MacLeod said no after a 20
minute hearing. And that's what this second appeal is about.
I had the right to an election, I was denied the election on
the grounds that the Crown has discretion, just like when
there's a corpse, to choose "Murder One," "Murder Two,"
"Manslaughter." And just like when there's "More than 3
Keys" and "Less than 3 Keys." Well, that's different. Now,
they don't have discretion as to the facts, they have
discretion as to charges with respect to facts. But they
can't change the facts. And the facts are there were more
than 3 kilograms and on the face of the indictment is a lie.

Now, the defence I never got to offer, because after my pre-
plea motion to Quash on the grounds of Krieger was
dismissed, the conviction was handed down right then. I
would have argued I have more if you say I was charged with
less and I never got a chance to argue that.

So the Crown does not have the discretion to change the
facts of the crime which they've done here. They may do it
for others who don't complain, I did. I tried to fix it.
They didn't let me, they should have. I had more, I should
have had the opportunity for a jury trial. And that's what
that Certiorari is about.

Finally, for the conviction. Marijuana's been known as
helpful for all sorts of things.

JCT: For a life sentence offence, the Court deigns to spend
another 5 minutes. Talk about digging deep seeking Justice.

TURMEL: Glaucoma, epilepsy, M.S., health with cancer, cure
cancer!! It regrows brain cells. We didn't know that until
the University of Saskatchewan announced that last year. It
doesn't kill brain cells, like alcohol, with hangovers, it
makes you grown brain cells which is why you feel good.

So, all these lies about it have never been proven, and we
have an absolutely non-toxic medicinal herb that is no
threat to me or anyone else, and on the grounds that
prevention of this kind of disease is also valuable because
it adds to my chance of surviving, that means that I too
have my right to life threatened by this prohibition of a a
healthy herb that could help me prevent all these well-known
diseases it's good for.

And finally, the last defence I was going to present to the
charge of possession with intent to traffic was that the
evidence shows that that I announced I was bringing a pound
of marijuana to the House of Commons for the Prime
Minister's inspection. That I was going to bring a pound to
the Supreme Court for the judges' inspection. Then a pound
across the street to the Minister of Justice for his
inspection. And over to the Superior Court, the R.C.M.P.,
the Ottawa Police for their inspection.

So the evidence did show that I didn't bring it for the
purpose of trafficking, that I brought it for the purpose of
inspection, and I did possess over three keys but I don't
believe the presumption is valid that I was there to
traffic when I was simply there to allow them to inspect it
and luckily, that was reported in evidence.

So, on the grounds to the charge that I had less than 3
kilograms of marijuana, I plead I had more.

And to the charge that I had intent to traffic, I had intent
to let them inspect.

And that the argument I would have made before conviction
and it's not satisfying like having the law declared invalid
on Krieger Day December 4 2002, which is the ultimate
decision being used by the two sick, legitimately ailing
appellants behind me.

So I have these arguments to mitigate my conviction and at
the same time, I also filed an application for prohibition,
the arguments of which I've made which represent the
injustice that these ill people behind me were forced to
suffer because the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Hitzig
said they were going to do what Parliament didn't do. Bring
back a law to life. And they told judges around the country
to ignore the Interpretation Act and just pretend it was
absent until they brought it back to life.

And I am only worried that they're not going to say that the
capital punishment is only absent and they're about to bring
it back to life. I always hope it would only be Parliament.
Thank you.

Clerk: The court is recessed.

JCT: Pierre pointed out that my 45-minute tape still had
plenty to go when the pointed out the 30-minute point. Maybe
the judge was counting in the time used before I got to
start my presentation.

[continued...


--
Abolitionist 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 519-753-0645 USENET: can.politics

JCT: The full cast of characters were there. Co-Appellants
Pierre Drouin and Real Martin, former co-appellants Doug and
Laurie Nielsen, Terry Parker, Steve Coroza for the Crown and
a French Crown in case. I referred to a two-page summary of
topics to be covered in my 40-minute presentation on
Prohibition of the charges due to Krieger. I'd received a
letter saying I'd be allotted zero minutes to argue my
appeal against conviction!

Court File No.
M33601: Crown motion to quash,
C44684: Real Martin appeal for Prohibition of S.7 charge
C44683: Pierre Drouin appeal for Prohibition of S.7 charge
C44587: John Turmel appeal for Prohibition of S.7 charge
C44588: John Turmel appeal for Certiorari for jury
C45295: John Turmel appeal for Quash and against conviction.

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
BETWEEN:
                      PIERRE DROUIN and
                       REAL MARTIN and
                        JOHN C. TURMEL
                                                   Appellants
                               Respondents on Motion To Quash
                             and
                    HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
                                                   Respondent
                                 Applicant on Motion to Quash

              FEB 23 2007 AUDIOTAPE-AIDED NOTES

Justices Labrosse, Sharpe, Blair

JCT: Before it got started, Crown counsel Steve Coroza
wanted to discuss how we were going to handle the argument
in my appeal of my conviction for "possession of marijuana
for the purpose of trafficking" to Prime Minister Chretien
et al at the House of Commons bust in May 2003.

I pointed out our recent Court of Appeal letter indicating
that zero time had been allocated to argue this appeal. He
hadn't noticed that we weren't going to have any time to
argue that appeal against conviction.

When it got started, I first asked that I be allowed to use
my tape recorder. Long-time readers will remember that
during the Court of Appeal hearings while consolidated to
the Hitzig cross-appeal, I'd gotten to make tapes pursuant
to S.136 for my personal notes and thus transcripts of every
single hearing. Except one, before Justice Labrosse, so I
hoped I wasn't going to lose an invaluable record of the
case by catching the only judge who erred on the tape issue
the last time around. But he asked Coroza if he had any
objections, Steve said no, and I was granted the privilege
of taping.

TURMEL: Just a couple of procedural items for a moment. The
style of cause. There are three procedures going on here
today. One, an appeal for prerogative remedy of prohibition,
which was originally filed by Mr. Drouin, and then a couple
of weeks later, Mr. Martin filed an application for
prohibition and then later, I filed an application for
prohibition, all based on the same Krieger case in Alberta.

JCT: I forgot to ask why they had allotted zero time for me
to argue conviction appeal with the 40 minutes for the
Prohibition appeal.

TURMEL: The second issue is that when I was charged with
possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, I
had over 3 kilograms of marijuana which meant that a
provincial court judge did not have absolute jurisdiction
over me and I had to get an election. And the Crown, on the
indictment, charged me with possession for the purpose of
trafficking of "less than 3 kilograms" and I made an
application to correct that and put "more than 3 kilograms"
and we are now here on a certiorari to remove the case from
the lower court where they had no jurisdiction to the higher
court.

Finally, the third issue is my conviction for possession
with the intent to trafficking. And I'm going to argue that
I did not get the opportunity to present the constitutional
argument that, like Terry Parker who won the right to use
this herb to prevent epilepsy for medical reasons, I, a
healthy person, want the right to use this herb for
preventative medical reasons. And I say that since I can
show many different diseases where I would not be exposed if
I had this herb, my chances of dying are reduced, and
therefore, prohibiting the herb which would reduce my
chances of dying has to have an effect on my right, as it
did on Mr. Parker's right.

So those are the three issues. Prohibition on the ground the
law was struck down by Parker, Section 4, and by Krieger,
Section 7, with Section 4. That's an issue of Prohibition
where I'm joined with the other two. And there's the
Certiorari for being charged and tried in the wrong court.
And then there's the conviction without the chance to argue
about the constitutional motion, or put in a defence.

So, on that basis, those are the issues and I want to point
out in Appendix 9, there's the situation where "Ottawa stay
pot charges in 4000 cases" in December of 2003 after the
Hitzig Court of Appeal said that the MMAR (Marijuana Medical
Access Regulations) had failed to save the CDSA (Controlled
Drugs and Substances Act) prohibition.

At about 5000 busts a month, that means that when they
dropped the last 4000 charges, that was the tip of the
iceberg, they should have pointed out that all the people
who were convicted while the law was invalid should have had
those convictions erased since they could all apply for an
extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal to argue before
you that the Court of Appeal struck down the law, said it
had been struck down for 2 years, after they'd already
pleaded guilty and didn't know the law was dead. (1)

So there could be a lot of people coming up here and I call
those "victims of the Krieger scandal", I mean, "of the
Parker scandal." And finally, that's over 100,000 people
convicted, the last 4000 off the hook. And they didn't erase
the convictions?

And finally, we're going to argue that the Hitzig court did
not have the power to resurrect the Section 4 prohibition on
marijuana; that the "J.P." judges Phillips, Rogin, Chen in
B.C. were correct in saying that the Interpretation Act
should be....

LABROSSE J.A.: But the decision in R. v. Turmel of this
court in 2003...

TURMEL: That was an application for prohibition on the basis
of Parker. But then we found out about Krieger. And they
said that they struck down the prohibitions, also.

LABROSSE J.A.: But we're bound by the 2003 Turmel decision
of our court.

TURMEL: Oh, I applied to have 5 judges, because I knew I was
going to need five judges...

LABROSSE J.A.: Yes,

TURMEL: And to now say that I didn't get five judges, so I
can't win...

LABROSSE J.A.: (JCT: more about only jurisdiction at Supreme
Court of Canada

TURMEL: Yes, I might end up there anyway. But the Hitzig
Court reversed the Parker Court...

LABROSSE J.A.: (JCT: he wanted to talk about my conviction.)

JCT: I'm not there yet. First of all, I'm dealing with these
two people.

LABROSSE J.A.: You're not, you're dealing with your own
case.

JCT: On the Prohibition.

LABROSSE J.A.: On everything, you're dealing with your own
case.

JCT: I want to establish.

LABROSSE J.A.: You're not acting for Mr. Drouin and Mr.
Martin.

JCT: But I want to prove the "law is dead" for all three of
us.

LABROSSE J.A.: Well, prove the law is dead but prove it for
your own case.

TURMEL: But I've got to start by proving Section 7 and
Section 4 are dead before I extend the argument to Section
5(2). Because Justice Earle-Renton at one point said that
possession is not illegal, intent to possess can't be
illegal. I think so too. So that's fine but the Court of
Appeal said no.

Again, yes, I'm going to be asking for a decision different
from that handed down, but isn't that what they did to the
Parker Court? The Parker Court said.... let me give you my
presentation and I'll cover all these things in my story.

LABROSSE J.A.: The Parker Court is the Alberta decision?

TURMEL: No, that's the Krieger decision.

JCT: Not knowing the Parker Court is the Ontario decision
out of his own court indicates he may not have read my
material or he read it and forgot.

LABROSSE J.A.: The Krieger decision?

JCT: Tough to get it all done in 40 minutes if he hasn't
read about the Krieger invalidation of Section 7 prohibition

TURMEL: It starts with Parker. So, I mean, I'll work through
my timeline and lay all my bricks and my stones in order to
build my edifice and go as fast as I can. Okay? And I would
like to mention one thing.

In the application for prohibition, when the application
comes down in the decision of Drouin, Martin and Turmel,
could the style of cause please reflect Drouin, Martin and
Turmel because chronologically, alphabetically, he filed
first. Right now, for some reason, they put Martin, the
second case, in the head of the style of cause and I'd like
very much if the court could please put, chronological and
alphabetical, the first person, Pierre Drouin, to head the
style of cause. And that will keep separate the Drouin case
from the Turmel cases.

So, all right, in 1997, I'm going to quickly explain the
story, Justice Sheppard exempted Terry Parker saying that
sick people will get an exemption from Section 4 possession
and Section 7 cultivation. The Government appealed, not the
cultivation exemption, just the possession exemption. And on
July 31 2000, in Parker One, Justices Rosenberg, Catzman and
Charron said that it's up to Parliament. They're striking
down the Section 4, they would strike down Section 7 if they
could but it hasn't been appealed so they can't. So they
strike down Section 4, make it invalid, but suspend their
decision for a year to give the government the chance to
craft a remedy which would allow epileptics like Terry
Parker to get their medicine.

Parker used to have up to 80 seizures a day, had two
lobectomies done before he found out that marijuana ends
seizures. And he then convinced the court that marijuana is
an effective anti-seizure remedy.

Well, unfortunately, the Court of Appeal, when they
suspended their decision for a year, then exempted Parker
from prohibition but then did not exempt any of the other
four hundred thousand epileptics in Canada, 1500 of whom,
unluckier than Parker, died in the next year and would not
have died if the Court of Appeal had simply struck down the
unconstitutional prohibition.

On Sep 15 2000, I came back to Canada after a United Nations
stint on another issue and started helping exemptees, or
people who wanted to get exemptions, to fight Health Canada
and overturn their refusals.

After it was declared in Parker that they had to provide
some sort of access, they jury-rigged a Section 56 procedure
and then imported all their narc pharmacists from the
Ministry of Justice over to the Ministry of Health so they
could then reject all the doctors' applications for
marijuana as "insufficiently proven" and demanded more proof
from doctors to pharmacists. And I did overturn five, I did
have five judicial reviews of refusals for marijuana
exemptions which were overturned, two guys with AIDS, one
with Dystonia, one with epilepsy, and finally, those abuses
were all coming to an end in the Federal Court of Canada in
the Supreme Court of Canada building in Ottawa, all decrying
their lousy conditions with insufficient access due to the
marijuana regulations as they stood, and then the Parker
decision came down and then the government issued the MMAR
on the very last day. To try to save the CDSA prohibition.

So Parker couldn't have complied on time, nobody could. And
in Brampton, just a month ago, Justice Clements noted: how
could anybody apply on time if it was issued on the last
day? And that's true.

So eventually, two years later, after Parker made an
application.... let's get back to the story. On December 11,
after the Court of Appeal had made their decision and they
say: the remedy crafted by Sheppard in granting exemptions
is wrong. It's not for us to do that, he should have just
struck it down, so that's what we're going to do. We're
going to strike Section 4 and give them a chance to fix it.

In Alberta, the Krieger case makes an application to strike
down Section 7 cultivation, for medical reasons. Justice
Acton, right after the Ontario Court of Appeal, said: I
agree that this is the way to do it so I will strike down
Section 7 cultivation prohibition and suspend my decision
for a year. Until they fix it.

On November 18, the Crown gets the Appellant's stay of the
Acton decision in Krieger, pending the appeal on the ground
that they were the Appellant. And they got their stay.

Six weeks after the government fumbles and doesn't protect
Parker within a year, they then say: "We're sending you an
extension of an exemption." Six weeks too late. "For six
months to get a doctor because all exemptees are having
trouble, we're giving them all 6 months."

Six months later, before six months, Parker seeks an
exemption extension from the Ontario Court of Appeal: They
granted me an exemption to protect me until they fix it, I
make an application to declare that they failed and the law
is invalid on Terry Parker Day 2001 or I want an extension
of my protection please.

He got a letter back from the Ontario Court of Appeal saying
they're "functus officio," the court case is closed and he's
got to go get his remedy below. Can't go back to the Court
of Appeal when the file is closed.

Parker goes below to the Superior Court, on short notice
because the decision came back on the 6th of March and his
exemption expired on the 15th of March, so Parker, on March
13, files go below on short notice for a declaration that
the prohibition died on Terry Parker Day when it failed to
work, the MMAR, or b) an extension of his exemption.

Now the Crown doesn't show up, snafu in the Crown's office
but Justice Pitt, on short notice and ex parte, issues an
order not saying that the law is invalid since Terry Parker
Day, the big decision, because the b) remedy. He said: I'm
extending the protection of the Court of Appeal until the
government has complied with the Parker Court's ruling.
Well, there's proof, the first Superior Court opinion that
the MMAR hasn't complied with the Parker Court's ruling if
Parker is unprotected.

So Parker is now protected. Then, the Crown, instead of now
stopping all prosecutions once the Superior Court opined
that prohibition is no longer valid, what do they do? This
is a criminal court remedy, against the Criminal Code. They
make a motion under the Civil Rules of Practice to set aside
Justice Pitt's decision because they weren't there. And, at
the hearing, a judge is persuaded to set it aside as a
default judgment, and that was appealed and eventually ended
up at the Court of Appeal.

Parker makes a motion, his motion to have the law declared
invalid on Terry Parker Day is adjourned. Then eventually
there was a new application, the Hitzig application which
started, and then it was consolidated with the Parker
application and I had started an application with Marc
Paquette, Turmel-Paquette, to strike down the law as well,
and we were all consolidated together under Parker and
others. Parker, Hitzig, and Turmel... This was styled by
Justice Weiler. So let's call the first case Parker One
where he gets the law declared "invalid" and the second
attempt is Parker Two where he's trying to get it declared
"invalid after the year because they screwed it." And it's
mixed in with the Hitzig which is trying to get the MMAR
declared invalid when we know it didn't work already. What's
fixing it going to do?

So Parker's now *** the Pitt decision set aside. In a case
I'm connected with, I can testify to, Health Canada admits
they've got 94 "dormant" files. These are people they can't
find alive anymore, people their pharmacists stalled to
death. And my point is that all epileptics should have been
protected the next day and were not.

So finally, on December 4, 2002, up comes the appeal of
Krieger in the Alberta court of Appeal and the court
dismisses the Crown's appeal and says: look, you say she put
conditions on you, she didn't. All she did was strike down
Section 7. And that's what she did, strike down Section 7
and we're dismissing your appeal.

Now, they had an option, the Crown, at that point, to apply
for a Supreme Court of Canada stay under the Supreme Court
of Canada Act Section 65 which would have then stayed the
Acton decision from taking effect invalidating Section 7.
And the Crown admitted that by implication, Section 4
possession because if cultivation isn't illegal, possession
isn't illegal. And the Crown twice admitted in its
Memorandum that, by implication, possession is associated
with the invalidation of cultivation.

Now the Court of Appeal has struck down the prohibition
against cultivation and possession, in Alberta! As high as
your court in Ontario when Parker struck down Section 4. And
when the government eventually dropped all the charges, they
dropped all the charges across Canada, no matter how many
times the Crown is going to argue that it only applies in
Ontario and we have to go strike down the law in all
fourteen jurisdictions. (JCT: Provinces) So the Alberta
Court of Appeal, equal to yours, struck down Section 7
cultivation, and possession too.

JCT: Now that I think about it, Supreme Court Act Section 65
says someone who has filed an application for leave to
appeal to the Supreme Court has the status to get a stay and
they have 30 days to do that. So perhaps there's a good
argument that the Krieger Court of Appeal invalidation took
place when the period to file their application expired, on
Jan 4, 2003, sandwiched right between the Windsor J.P.
decision on Jan 2 and the Lederman decision in Parker Two
for Terry Parker Day in 2001 on Jan 9 2003.

Turmel: Now we're coming up to 2003, the Windsor decision:
J.P. Justice Phillips says that, not because the MMAR didn't
work, the Lederman decision on that hadn't come down until a
week later, he said that because they didn't enact the
legislation right, the law was not there on time, and
therefore, according to the Interpretation Act Section 2(2),
a law that's been declared of no force and effect is to be
deemed repealed.

So on Jan 4, the Krieger Crown fails to appeal to the
Supreme Court of Canada within the allotted time. So Section
7 has been struck down, they say "only in Alberta," I say
everywhere too. And they don't change the Criminal Code to
reflect either the Parker invalidation or the Krieger
invalidation, not a word about that in the Criminal Code.

And finally, the Lederman decision happens and he says: yes,
the MMAR failed to work on time and save the CDSA but I'm
suspending my decision for six months which, I don't know
what that means but that happened.

So Parker then appealed, Terry Parker, and me and Paquette,
we appealed for the Parker Day Declaration that the law died
in 2001 which we eventually got. The Crown and Hitzig cross-
appealed. And of course, Justice Weiler styled it Parker,
Hitzig and the other cross-appellants.

And then on May 15, why didn't the Krieger Crown change the
Criminal Code, why didn't they stop prosecutions? Because
the Ministry of Justice were going to be introducing new
"recriminalising" legislation on May 15 of the next year. So
on May 14 of that year, one day before they were going to
officially introduce the new legislation to make criminal, I
went on the Hill with my seven pounds of marijuana to incur
a life-sentence and to show that possession prohibition was
invalid at the time, and I was right. But I had too much so
my intent now mattered.

But, I've run for Parliament 25 times, mayor of Ottawa
umpteen times, MPP in Ottawa, so I'm known in the Ottawa
area and you can see the picture of my arrest, at the back
you can see the Member of Parliament for Ottawa East, Eugene
Bellemarre, and I'm sure that he ran in there and told Jean
Chretien that Turmel was at the door being busted and he's
mad and we'd better call off the new law. And "Ottawa holds
back marijuana bill." It worked. They didn't introduce the
new law, they prorogued Parliament, and they never brought
back a new prohibition since, which is why all these people
are here saying: "We ask show us a new law" and you show us
a Hitzig decision. "Show us new legislation by Parliament,"
you show us a court order. And that's not the way it's
supposed to work.

So Parliament holds it back and the very next day, Justice
Rogin, Superior Court Rogin, is the third Superior Court
judge to agree that the law had been repealed because the
MMAR didn't save the CDSA prohibition, not because the MMAR
didn't work but because it hadn't been legislated properly,
but the effect is that it was repealed and it was proper to
call the charge a nullity and let the kid go.

And then finally, four days after I stopped the Minister of
Justice, because that would have solved the Crown's
headaches. If I hadn't stopped the Ministry of Justice from
bringing in the legislation, they wouldn't have needed to
appeal Krieger because they'd have their new Section 7 back
in operation and nobody would have known about the four
months glitch when the law was dead.

But I show up on the Hill, scare off the Minister of
Justice, and now they're stuck with no valid Section 7, so
now they apply, Krieger, to the Supreme Court of Canada. And
in their Memorandum, Crown, in two spots, says that the
court have struck down Section 7 cultivation in Alberta and
all he's got to do is lift the stay and cultivation is no
longer illegal.

Now what's this "lift the stay?" The Crown's argument is
that, when O'Leary J.A. extended the suspension for the
Appellant's motion until the appeal or until further order
of the court, but after the Final Order closed the case,
they said that the "Final Order" isn't a further order of
the court and that interim appellant's stay is still extant
after the file has been closed. But all he's got to do is
make an application to lift the stay and cultivation's legal
in Alberta.

But guess what, you can't make an application to the Court
of Appeal, to a closed file, once it's functus officio. The
Parker court, they said you can't do that. So here's the
Crown telling the Supreme Court of Canada that the law,
Section 7 is struck down except for this stay, this
imaginary stay, and all he's got to do is make an imaginary
motion to the Court to get back in to get it removed.

Otherwise, everybody busted since then was improperly
busted, three years worth. So that's an even bigger scandal
than the Parker scandal's 100,000 bogus convictions not
corrected. This is 150,000, 5,000 a month easy, bogus
prosecutions on the ground that the Crown says the O'Leary
Appellant's Stay is still alive. The only argument they had
for the Supreme Court of Canada that Krieger was not valid
was that this old Appellant's stay, when the appeal was
dismissed and the leave to appeal was dismissed, is still
alive.

Now, they argue in the same sentence that "by implication,
Section 4." So the Crown admits in their Krieger application
to the Supreme Court of Canada that if Section 7 is
invalidated, Section 4 has got to go with it.

So here we are with the Supreme Court of Canada note at
their web site which encapsulates the whole case and it's
part of our Appendix 10, and it explains Acton struck down,
declared it inconsistent with the Charter, suspended for one
year. Court of Appeal appeal with respect to Section 7 by
the Crown dismissed. And no word about any stay extant
barring the Acton decision from taking effect. And finally,
leave to appeal dismissed. On the very day the Malmo-Levine
case came down.

Then May 28, I made my first application to quash my
charges, which, my appeal, was converted by the Court to an
application for prohibition so it could be dealt with. Which
is why we've done applications for prohibition based on
Krieger since then. Justice Aitken said no, then on May 30,
in R. v. Peddle, Judge Kenkel told the Crown that you don't
stay charges which are a nullity, you must withdraw them.
It's unfair to hang a nullity charge over people's heads for
an extra six months. That's an important point later.

June 11, Pierre Drouin is charged under Section 7(1),
cultivation, for his medical need and possession for the
purpose of trafficking. Real Martin, June 18, one week
later, is charged Section 7(1) and 5(4).

June 25th, Judge Carthy does not extend the Lederman
suspension of the declaration that the MMAR did not work,
and there it is. In Parker Two, Terry Parker, then Hitzig,
and then Turmel. He said that the Crown can't complain that
they didn't do it right, they didn't get it done on time,
and therefore the MMAR strike-down took effect 6 months
after Lederman said so.

So the CDSA which was supposed to be saved by the MMAR,
we're saying that the MMAR didn't work so the CDSA died, and
later on they said: guess what, the MMAR didn't work and
it's dead too. Well, at this point in time, between July 9th
and October 7th of the Hitzig case, what's going on?
Everything's dead.

So, July 29th, that's the Parker Two appeal for the Parker
Day Declaration to say it was dead in 2001, lumped in and
consolidated with Hitzig and Turmel. Heard by Justices
Doherty, Goudge and Simmons. And just before that, out in
B.C., where Judge Chen repeated the same logic as Judge
Phillips and judge Rogin in Ontario in the J.P. case, that
once a statute has been declared of no force and effect, it
becomes a nullity and cannot be resuscitated.

The very next day, the Hitzig Court resuscitated the law
that the Interpretation Act says is repealed. The very next
day the Court of Appeal comes back. Yes, they do say that
the MMAR failed to work on time which then compelled the
government to drop the remaining 4000 charges. But they
didn't say it in the Terry Parker case who asked for the
Terry Parker Day Declaration. They stuck it in the Hitzig
case, the guys who asked to have the MMAR declared dead.
Not the CDSA. Then unfortunately, after taking away the
credit from Parker for asking to have the law declared dead
on Terry Parker Day, they then changed the style of cause
from Terry Parker et al demanding Terry Parker Day to Hitzig
et all demanding Terry Parker Day. And giving credit for the
Terry Parker Day declaration to Alan Young and his Hitzig
case.

But in reality, in the Hitzig case, the court then says:
Ignore the Interpretation Act, this is in the J.P. case but
it's the same argument quoted in Hitzig, in J.P. they say
Phillips and Rogin were wrong when they said that the
Interpretation Act says you have to treat it as repealed
when it's been declared of no force and effect, we're
telling you it ain't repealed, it's only absent until we fix
it.

They said: "The Ontario Court of Appeal in Parker said "We
declare the law to be invalid absent a constitutionally
acceptable medical exemption." They added the words "absent
a constitutionally acceptable medical exemption." The Parker
Court of Appeal didn't say absent anything. They didn't put
on a switch on and off. The Ontario Court of Appeal in
Parker said: Section is declared to be invalid. And the
Court of Appeal in Hitzig added a switch: "absent an
exemption" and now we're going to fix the exemption and turn
the prohibition back on.

Courts can't do that. Only Parliament can turn it back on
according to the Interpretation Act pursuant to Phillips,
Rogin and Chen out in B.C. But every judge in the country,
starting with R.v. Stavert in P.E.I. start saying: okay, the
law was struck down by the Parker Court of Appeal and it was
put back up by the Hitzig Court of Appeal. And we've been...

LABROSSE J.A.: Did you appeal in 2003?

JCT: Yes I did but unfortunately, there was one unsigned
Order and Justice Binnie dismissed the whole application as
abandoned. I was late getting the signed copy of an Order in
so he threw out the whole thing as abandoned. Same thing
with the appeal of the Hitzig decision. We were in that one
too and we appealed that one as well and it had a glitch in
it too and it was thrown out for the same reason.

So the Court of Appeal on Oct 07 2003 took Parker Two and
called it Hitzig, took Parker Two's remedy of the Terry
Parker Day Declaration that the law died in 2001 and it in
Hitzig. In J.P., they said: Ignore the Interpretation Act,
consider it absent so courts can fix it, not just
Parliament. In Turmel, I said: hey, you didn't know the law
was dead in 2001, 2002 an 2003, if you did...

LABROSSE J.A.: I have to remind you only have 10 minutes of
your 40 minutes left.

TURMEL: Gee, you know, 4 dead epileptics a day, 10,000 dead
epileptics in the last 7 years, are we really going to run
out of time?

JCT: I'd pointed out my two-page summary and I was half way
down the second page with only half a page to go before he
interrupted again. To remind me I had to drop some of my
presentation since he'd wasted so much of my time. Once I
realized he wasn't following my story but focusing on the
rush to lunch, my only out was to throw a little blood on
the proceedings. He's responsible for 4 dead epileptics a
day from now on too. But, after constantly interrupting my
presentation, he then orders me to finish on time!! I take a
few moments to decide which bricks in the construction the
judges won't get to find out about. Jugular time to a
hostile audience.

[continued...

--
Abolitionist 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 519-753-0645 USENET: can.politics

JCT: Financial good news is so rare.

>Time Banker is Islington Volunteer of the Year 2007
>Posted by: "TIMEBANK" mildmaytimebank@...
>Date: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:46 am ((PST))

Apologies for any cross-posting and sorry for taking the
liberty of doing this Ann but I just thought all our time
bank friends might like to hear the following bit of news.

Last night at City University, Inge Rowlinson-Lauder of
Hilldrop Time Bank was named "Islington Volunteer of the
Year 2007." Inge was presented with her award by Emily
Thornbury MP. This was at the annual celebration organised
by the Islington Volunteering Association, the networking
organisation that aims to bring together everyone from the
voluntary, public and private sector involved with
volunteering within Islington. Nobody in the Islington Time
Bank Network had any idea this was going to happen. Wearing
one of my other hats I am Treasurer of the Association and
they even hid it from me!

Inge is now in her early 70s. You might get an idea of her
attitude to this from the fact that last year she took part
in the Walk for Life marathon and raised over #200 for
people living with HIV and Aids. Throughout her time in
Islington she has been involved in a large number and
variety of community activities but in 2005 she discovered
and joined Hilldrop Time Bank. All I can say is, lucky old
Hilldrop. There she is currently running two sewing courses.

She is very skilled so both courses are packed-solid and
both have a waiting list. The six sewing machines, irons and
ironing boards she decided she needed to run the courses
were all paid for with a Community Champions Award she
personally (of course) went and won from the Scarman Trust.
She is, quite frankly, amazing.

It was a pretty good night all round for us really because
three other Islington Time Bank members also collected
certificates in recognition of the value we all place on
them.  These were Joan Hewitt, also of Hilldrop Time Bank,
Val Dunmow of Caxton House Time Bank and Kaaren Morris, the
(still) unpaid Broker and creator of the Upper Street Time
Bank. Well done everybody. Peter Roberts - Broker

The Mildmay Time Bank The Walnut Tree Bronte House
The Mayville Estate London N16 8LG
Telephone: 020 7249 5373 Fax:          020 7254 1320
http://www.islingtontimebanks.org

JCT: And these kinds of natural trading effects due to a
trading currency are taking place all over Latin America due
to the Bolivarian Revolution which makes us of social
currency too.


--
Abolitionist 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 519-753-0645 USENET: can.politics

>Ottawa Citizen Front Page
>Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997
>by Jeremy Mercer

OTTAWA'S UNDERGROUND NETWORK FOR MEDICINAL MARIJUANA

Dr. Don Kilby recommends that Jean Charles Pariseau smoke
marijuana to relieve some of his AIDS symptoms. Aubert
Martins makes sure Mr. Pariseau can get his hands on the
illegal drug. Jeremy Mercer reports.

When Jean Charles Pariseau fell sick with the AIDS virus
last fall, Aubert Martins felt compelled to help his dying
friend. The roughly 30 pills Mr. Pariseau takes each day to
fight the HIV made him nauseous and destroyed his appetite.
By last October, Mr. Pariseau, who at 5 foot 2 inches once
weighed 115 pounds, had dropped to a gaunt 82 pounds.
Doctors gave the Hull man three months to live.

Near the end of October 1996, Mr. Martins visited Mr.
Pariseau at the hospital. The old friends had often shared
marijuana cigarettes together, and they lit one up together
for old times' sake the first joint for Mr. Pariseau since
he had become severely ill. To his surprise, after smoking,
he ate a full meal and kept it all down. "The doctors told
me 'You have to eat, you have to eat," says Mr. Pariseau,
30. "I was sick so I couldn't. But when you smoke, you get
the munchies and you eat. So I started to smoke all the
time." Thus began Mr. Pariseau's extensive, illegal and
doctor-approved marijuana diet.

Not only had Mr. Pariseau found a marijuana grower to
provide him with the drug to alleviate his AIDS symptoms,
but he found a doctor, Don Kilby, who recommended he
continue using. "In this case, my recommendation was to
smoke a few joints because it stimulates his appetite and
keeps his weight up," Dr. Kilby says. Smoking four or five
joints a day, Mr. Pariseau's weight slowly began to climb
and within months he was up to 100 pounds.

Mr. Martins, an Ottawa marijuana grower, saw an opportunity
to help. Mr. Pariseau could neither afford to pay street
prices for marijuana nor could he trust the quality of the
drug off the street. So Mr. Martins, 40, decided he would
take responsibility for providing Mr. Pariseau with
marijuana. For the first few months, he would drop off 20 or
30 grams a week to his friend. Later, he set Mr. Pariseau up
with 50 marijuana plants and two lamps in one of the
apartment's closets. "He was sick and he needed the
marijuana," Mr. Martins says. "How could I not do
something?" Three weeks ago, all that came to an end.

On Oct. 15, while Mr. Pariseau sat on the couch swallowing
the last of his afternoon pills and his wife, Sylvie,
prepared a dinner of pork chops, mashed potatoes and gravy,
there was a knock on their door. According to Mr. Pariseau,
10 police officers, acting on a tip, swarmed in and seized
his modest marijuana growing setup. Both he and his wife
were charged with drug offences and will appear in Hull
court Nov. 20. Mr. Martins was outraged.

"Why Charles? Who was he hurting? He needs his marijuana to
live, even the doctors will tell you that. But still they
take away his crop and his equipment. It's not right." Mr.
Martins felt compelled to act again. For the past year, Mr.
Martins has been involved in a network of doctors, marijuana
growers, and cancer and AIDS victims whose goal is to
provide the illegal drug to patients in need. Despite the
fact that possession of marijuana is punishable by as much
as seven years in prison, and trafficking can mean a life
sentence, Mr. Pariseau's arrest has made Mr. Martins angry
enough to take his mission public. "What I am doing is not
wrong," Mr. Martins says. "These people need their smoke.
They need to make sure they get good quality and shouldn't
have to go to the street to get it. What I want to do is be
able grow marijuana and set up as many people who need it
with their own growing operations."

Mr. Martins is not alone. Informal networks have been formed
in most major Canadian cities to provide marijuana to
medical patients. Advocates of medical use of marijuana
contend that it promotes appetite and suppresses nausea
making it a potential lifesaver for patients undergoing
chemotherapy for cancer or battling the wasting syndrome
caused by the human immunodeficiency virus. And there is no
doubt there is support for the legalization of marijuana
among the public. In a poll of 1,515 Canadians conducted by
Angus Reid in the last week of October an incredible 83 per
cent of those asked supported the legalization of marijuana
for medicinal purposes. Fifty one per cent supported the
total legalization of the drug.

Mr. Pariseau believes the drug should be legalized for his
use. "If a doctor says it helps, why shouldn't I be able to
have it?" Mr. Pariseau's doctor has recommended he continue
to use marijuana. Dr. Don Kilby, who works at the University
of Ottawa health clinic, was not surprised that Mr. Pariseau
had been wasting away from his sickness. "As it happens with
a lot of patients with advanced cancers or advanced AIDS,
you get to a point where one of the things that kill them is
the malnutrition and the wasting stage at the end of their
disease," Dr. Kilby says. "You do whatever you can to
stimulate their appetite." Usually Dr. Kilby prescribes the
drug Megace as an appetite stimulant. But Megace is not
available for AIDS patients under the Quebec health care
plan and costs between $2,000 and $3,000 a month for the
dose an AIDS patient needs.

Mr. Pariseau and his wife, Sylvie, could not afford that.
After he got sick, Mr. Pariseau had to leave his job as a
carpet layer and now the couple depends on social
assistance. When Mr. Pariseau told Dr. Kilby he was using
marijuana to keep his food down, Dr. Kilby approved.
"Without the marijuana he didn't have the appetite and
without the appetite he wasn't eating. Without the eating he
wasn't able to take the 20some pills a day that I was trying
to give him. So this way, with the appetite improved, the
weight gaining and the better digestion and the nausea
reduced, he was able to take his medication and the
treatment was working," Dr. Kilby says.

And both Dr. Kilby and Mr. Pariseau are thrilled with the
results, considering that a little more than a year ago,
doctors told Mr. Pariseau he had three months to live. "His
prognosis for living, although he is going to be permanently
handicapped because of how sick he got, right now it looks
pretty good if we can keep him on his medications and keep
his weight up," Dr. Kilby says. "I'm not going to say he's
going to live until he's sixty, but at least instead of
looking at a prognosis of three months we're looking more at
a prognosis of three years."

It is cases like Mr. Pariseau's that strengthen Dr. Kilby's
support for the legalization of marijuana for medicinal
purposes. "Even though I can't prescribe and don't grow it
and don't give it out, I don't have any qualms about telling
people that if you're using it medicinally I cannot say
you're doing a bad thing," he says. "I think that people
that fit the criteria of wasting and malnutrition secondary
to disease, or induced by the treatments or chemotherapies
used to treat the disease, I can't see why we wouldn't allow
them to use marijuana if it was going to extend their
lives."

There have been several court cases in Canada over exactly
what Dr. Kilby recommends the legalization of marijuana for
medicinal purposes. In the most recent case, Lynn Harichy,
who has multiple sclerosis, challenged the law by trying to
smoke a joint on the steps of the London police station in
October. She was arrested and charged with possession of a
narcotic. Ms. Harichy, 36, is being defended by Alan Young,
an Osgoode Hall law professor who recently lost a
high profile constitutional challenge to the marijuana law.
He was defending London hemp shop owner Chris Clay, who was
charged with trafficking and possession of marijuana. Mr.
Clay was convicted and fined $750.

JCT: Har har har. Another Young loser I didn't know about.

"There are groups of people providing marijuana for
medicinal purposes from the west coast to the east coast,"
says Mr. Young, whose goal is to have the marijuana law
struck down.

JCT: And after Terry Parker got it struck down, he Hitzig
case got it struck up! Oops. With a goal of stricking it
down to striking it up by the backward professor.

"It's about time we took this underground activity and
legitimized it and created some quality control.

JCT: He was pushing for government control while I wanted it
available at the farmers' markets.

We have a situation where people with debilitating illnesses
venture into the black market and risk the jeopardy of
criminal sanctions." Mr. Young himself was part of a group
that tried to start a marijuana buyers club for cancer and
AIDS patients in Toronto, but the effort failed, partly out
of fear of police repercussions.

JCT: Another Young loser due to fear. Har har har. I've
never lost anything due to fear. Har har har har.

Mr. Young says he believes Ms. Harichy will win her case,
but is not confident such a decision will lead to changes in
the law.

JCT: Since he never sought to invalidate the law in any of
his motions, always seeking something personal that didn't
win it for everyone, is it any wonder he admits up front
that a win by the Cannabis Court Clutz won't change
anything.

"I tell people that these medical necessity case are
important, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking it
will change the law. Any decision will be appealed," Mr.
Young says. "What we must do is push the government to make
changes to the law."

JCT: And yet, Parker got the courts to repeal the
prohibition. Then Young got the Hitzig court to unrepeal it.

When told about Mr. Pariseau's arrest, Mr. Young was
surprised. "The government is aware these people are doing
it and they rarely intervene because the optics of it would
be very bad. It would be the big, bad government depriving
seriously ill people of something that would make their
lives more bearable."

The Cannabis Compassion Club in Vancouver is a case in
point, providing a safe spot for cancer and AIDS patients to
buy and smoke marijuana. Vancouver police have said they are
not concerned about the club's activities unless it starts
selling to minors or recreational users.

Mr. Martins hopes authorities here in the Ottawa area turn a
similar blind eye to his own missions of mercy. On a sunny
day last week, Mr. Martins packed 100 grams of marijuana
into the glove compartment of a friend's car and made his
rounds in Hull. His first stop was the Pariseau's apartment
on Mont Bleu Boulevard. Mr. Martins dropped off a bag of
marijuana and rolled a few joints as the Pariseau's dog
Coquette ran circles around the table.

Mr. Martins has been growing marijuana for two decades and
his experience is evident in the quality of the marijuana.
He says he had offers from various organized crime groups
who want him to oversee their growing operations. And
needless to say, he could make a fortune by selling his
product on the street. But Mr. Martins says he is not the
marijuana business for the money. He lives a relatively
humble existence, with no car and only rented rooms in the
basement of an Ottawa house. "I do it because I love to
grow, simple as that."

Mr. Martins has ended up on the wrong side of the law,
though. This spring, police seized more than 500 marijuana
plants and growing equipment from his basement. He ended up
pleading guilty to drug charges and received a 90 day jail
sentence, which he serves on weekends. The spring bust did
change the way Mr. Martins worked. Instead of growing the
marijuana himself, he set up smaller growing operations
around the city. The deal he offers is simple: he'll set
someone up with the plants and equipment and when it comes
time to harvest the marijuana, half of the crop goes to sick
people he serves and the host keeps the other half.

Using these satellite crops, he sells to a few friends to
provide the basics and distributes to a loose circle of
people with AIDS, cancer, and other serious illnesses. And
he also sells to some doctors in Quebec who provide the
marijuana for their patients. Mr. Martins will not disclose
the names of the doctors to whom he sells because they fear
prosecution. He will not say how many people he provides to,
but the network continues to grow through word of mouth.
"Anyone who is in a situation like that, give me a call and
I'll set them up," says Mr. Martins. "I'll help them."

His dream is that marijuana be legalized for medicinal
purposes, so he can set up a business to provide the drug
and installing marijuana growing units in the homes of those
in need. "It's clean that way," says Mr. Martins. "If you
buy marijuana on the street, you don't know what's in it,
you don't know what you're getting."

As the joint made its way around the Pariseau table, Mr.
Pariseau talked about his illness. He believes he contracted
the virus in 1984, when as a teenager, he had a six month
addiction to cocaine, which he injected with friends. He
didn't even realize he was infected until he collapsed last
August with a mysterious illness. His days now are spent
either in his apartment or at the hospital. His wife Sylvie
is constantly by his side.

"I accept the sickness but I don't accept the laws," says
Mrs. Pariseau. "He's dying and the marijuana helps, the
doctors even say so. But they won't let him have it. It's
just a plant." In one small miracle, despite eight years of
physical intimacy when Mr. Pariseau didn't realize he
carried the virus, his wife was not infected.

After dropping off marijuana to Mr. Pariseau, Mr. Martins
travelled a bit further to drop off another bag to a second
young man with AIDS who did not want his name in the paper.
His last stop was the home of Gerard Konning in a quiet
suburb of Hull. Mr. Konning suffers from Crohn's disease and
had a brain tumor removed last year. "It keeps me from
jumping off the bridge, really," Mr. Konning said as he
served Mr. Martins coffee.

JCT: Incredible. I gambled with Gerald Koening and he was
one of the witnesses in an earlier trial.

This day Mr. Martins is giving Mr. Konning about 30 grams of
marijuana for $100, enough to make about 100 joints. The
money, less than $4 a gram, goes to cover Mr. Martins'
expenses. On the street, a gram of marijuana costs between
$10 and $15. The combination of stress and pain from his
various illnesses keeps Mr. Konning from sleeping at night.
He was prescribed more than a dozen types of sleeping pills
and tranquilizers, everything from Valium to Prozac, but
nothing worked. He couldn't sleep, his head spun and his
life was miserable. Last fall, Mr. Konning was in the same
hospital ward as Mr. Pariseau. The two got to talking and
Mr. Pariseau told Mr. Konning how pleased he was with the
marijuana. "I was totally against it before," Mr. Konning
says. "I used to be 500 per cent against anything to do with
drugs. But when you smoke and you head stops spinning and
you can sleep at night, you change. The first 49 years of my
life, I never tried a drug. Now, I don't know where I'd be
without it." After leaving Mr. Konning's home, Mr. Martin
sprayed deodorizer in his car to mask the smell of
marijuana. He shrugs. "Is what I do so bad?"
---

>Canada: Police unfazed by medicinal marijuana so far
>Ottawa Citizen
>Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997
>by Jeremy Mercer

POLICE UNFAZED BY MEDICINAL MARIJUANA SO FAR

Area police forces are taking no immediate action against
members of a medicinal marijuana network that distribute the
drug to seriously ill patients in the Ottawa area. In
Sunday's Citizen, one marijuana grower and two patients one
with AIDS, the other with Crohn's disease gave details of
how they distributed and smoked marijuana. The article also
included a local doctor, Don Kilby, who approves of
marijuana for medicinal purposes. The RCMP is making no
comment on whether it will investigate the network's
activities. "We're going to analyse the article and the
information in it," said Insp. Dwaine Tranquilla. "We'll
make a decision later in the week."

The chief of Ottawa Carleton Police would also not say
whether his force will look into the network. "I won't
comment on that," said Chief Brian Ford. "There's a lot of
scientific evidence that say marijuana therapy is effective
for cancer patients. I can see the validity of that, but
obviously the law doesn't allow for it at this time." Chief
Ford has been a longtime advocate for the decriminalization
of marijuana but said his personal views do not reflect
police decisions.

According to Richard Addelman, one of Ottawa's most
experienced criminal lawyer, it is unlikely members of the
network could be charged based solely on the Citizen
article. "They couldn't charge them with trafficking because
they don't have the substance they claims to be trafficking
in," says Mr. Addelman. "Based on a newspaper report, it's
not enough."

The men who came forward with their stories of how they need
and distribute marijuana remain unfazed by the potential for
police retribution. Jean Charles Pariseau, a 30 year-old
Hull man with AIDS, has been supplied with free marijuana
for almost a year through the network.

In October, the RCMP charged Mr. Pariseau for marijuana
possession. "If they come again, I'll smoke a joint right in
front of them. I need it for my life," says Mr. Pariseau.

Aubert Martins, the Ottawa marijuana grower who oversees the
distribution of marijuana to more than a dozen AIDS and
cancer patients, is equally confident. "I have no family
here, I don't own very much. What can they do?" says Mr.
Martin. "I am doing what is right, I'm helping many people.
Anyway, I'd much rather they come after me than someone like
Jean Charles who has AIDS or someone else who is sick."
---

>Police target medical marijuana
>Ottawa Citizen
>Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997
>by Jeremy Mercer

RCMP intends to charge patients and grower who provides free
drug

The RCMP has launched an investigation into Ottawa's
underground medicinal marijuana network with hopes of laying
drug charges against a man who provides free marijuana to
AIDS and cancer patients. "If there are reasonable and
probable grounds to believe an offence is being committed,
as in any case, we would pursue charges," said Cpl. Louis
Chiasson of the RCMP's drug squad, who is leading the
investigation. "We have to do this. "Certainly, we have
received directions to do so, so we are following up on it."
Cpl. Chiasson says there is a "distinct possibility" the
investigation will result in charges against either the man
who distributes marijuana to the sick or the patients who
use the drug to fight their illness.

Earlier this month, the Citizen reported on a network of
marijuana growers, seriously ill patients and doctors who
advocate marijuana use for medicinal purposes and made sure
those who were sick received the drug. The article named one
marijuana grower, Aubert Martins, and two patients, Jean
Charles Pariseau, who is suffering from AIDS, and Gerard
Konning, who suffers from Crohn's disease, who are part of
the medicinal marijuana network. The article also mentioned
a local doctor, Don Kilby, who approves of marijuana for
medicinal purposes and stated that Mr. Pariseau's marijuana
use has helped him gain 30 pounds and increased his life
expectancy from three months to three years. That article
prompted the RCMP investigation into Mr. Martins.

Yesterday morning, RCMP officers questioned Mr. Pariseau,
who smokes three or four joints a day to stimulate his
appetite and fight the nausea caused by the 30 pills he
takes each day to combat his HIV. The RCMP also summoned a
Citizen reporter to their offices on McArthur Avenue for
questioning. The reporter declined to make a statement to
police. "If somebody comes and gives me information that
someone has a plantation or has growing activities, then we
have to look into it," explained Cpl. Chiasson. "We are
certainly interested in the activities that are alleged in
the article. It is certainly a distinct possibility we will
find there are reasonable grounds to pursue charges."

There is a precedent of police turning a blind eye to this
type of activity. In Vancouver, police refuse to raid a
marijuana club that caters to cancer and AIDS patients as
long as they don't see children or teenagers using the
facility. However, the RCMP here say they can't do that.
"It's still against the law and we're here to enforce that,"
said Cpl. Chiasson.

The Ottawa-Carleton police are not commenting on the case
but say they are not conducting their own investigation into
the underground medicinal marijuana network. Mr. Martins was
unfazed by news of the investigation. "You can't blame them
for doing their job, but if they come asking questions, I
don't talk to police. I'll tell them to talk to my lawyers.
If they have something to charge me with, charge," says Mr.
Martins. "Even if they put me in jail, the wheel is moving.
The people who need the marijuana will get it."

Mr. Martins, 40, has been the subject of prior police
investigations. This spring, he was charged with drugrelated
offences after the RCMP found several hundred marijuana
plants in his basement. Mr. Martins pleaded guilty to those
charges and is currently serving a 60day jail sentence by
working at the Shepherds of Good Hope on weekends. After the
bust, Mr. Martins set up smaller marijuanagrowing stations
across the region to make sure he could still provide the
drug to those in need. Meanwhile, the Ottawa case has
attracted the attention of one of the world's foremost
advocates of legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Dr. Lester Grinspoon, an associate professor of psychiatry
at the Harvard Medical School who coauthored the
groundbreaking book Marijuana, the Forbidden Medicine, is
hoping to use the stories of Mr. Pariseau and Mr. Martins
for another book he is planning on the fight to legalize
marijuana. "I can present all the medical evidence in the
world, but we need people's stories to bring the issue
alive," says Dr. Grinspoon. "What this Mr. Martins is doing
is commendable and important. I salute him." Dr. Grinspoon
became convinced of marijuana's medical benefits after his
son was struck with leukemia. "He insisted on using it, even
though I told him not to," says Dr. Grinspoon. "Then I saw
what was happening. Instead of vomiting for eight hours
after his chemotherapy, he'd be asking us to pick him up a
submarine sandwich. I couldn't believe the difference."
---

>From: MedPotMarc
>CC Magazine
>http://medpot.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=45989

Jean-Charles Pariseau (sitting in wheelchair) with friend
Sylvie at federal court. The arm with the briefcase is me.

Dear Friends;
Jean-Charles would have been 40 years old next August 22nd.

He was also John C. Turmel's first medical marijuana
Exemptee federal court case in 2000.

I also fought in courts with Jean-Charles, and I can
reassure everyone that "Hellth" Canada gave Jean-Charles and
many of us a very hard time - and they still are! Jean-
Charles is now free, without pain or "Hellth" Canada in his
way. May his soul rest in peace!

The following is Jean-Charles Pariseau's first Affidavit for
an APPLICATION UNDER Section 18(1) of the Federal Court Act.

Court File No. 00-T-36
FEDERAL COURT - TRIAL DIVISION

BETWEEN
The Applicant:
Jean Charles Pariseau

AND
The Respondent:
Attorney General of Canada

APPLICATION UNDER Section 18(1) of the Federal Court Act
AFFIDAVIT OF JEAN CHARLES PARISEAU

I, Jean Charles Pariseau, disabled, residing at the city of
Vanier in the Regional Municipality of Ottawa Carleton swear
that:

1. Ex. A. is my Letter of Exemption dated June 09 1999
pursuant to section 56 of the law regulating certain drug
and other substances (LRCDAS). I was the first person in
Canada to qualify for an exemption to cultivate, possess
medicinal cannabis hemp marijuana for medicinal purposes. I
suffer HIV, Toxoplasmose, Epilepsy, Anemia of the blood for
which I take 48 pills every day in 6 sessions. My doctor has
recommended 2 to 3 grams per day though have found I need to
smoke 4 or more than grams of marijuana per day to help me
ingest my 21 grams of pills. The more marijuana I smoke, the
more I can eat and the longer I can keep my weight up and
stay alive. Having marijuana to help in my treatment is the
best help in helping me cope with my illnesses.

2. According to the scope of exemption in my original letter
dated June 9 1999:

"Scope of Exemption:

2) you may only produce/cultivate or possess the quantity of
the designated substance necessary to satisfy your current
personal medical needs. The exemption does not permit you to
import, export or traffic in the designated substance in the
sense of the LRCDAS."

3. Exhibit B is my Letter of Exemption dated June 09 2000
with the following amendments and information:

"Attached is your new Letter of Exemption. Make sure to note
the following changes concerning your new exemption letter
which has the effect of harmonizing its content with that of
other letters of exemption granted over the past year to
other applicants:

A) A maximum quantity of marijuana has been specified for
possession and cultivation in the section titled "Scope of
the Exemption."

B] The exemptions are now granted for six months.

Scope of the Exemption:

2) At the place where you produce/cultivate marijuana, you
are authorized the produce/cultivate and have in your
possession a quantity not to exceed a total of 3 mature
plants of marijuana, 4 immature plants and 30 grams of
usable marijuana per plant. At locations other than where
you produce/cultivate, you are authorized to have in your
possession a quantity not exceeding 30 grams of usable
marijuana.

Suspension and Revocation.

This exemption may be suspended and, finally, revoked, if a
more appropriate new therapy or other method of legal access
becomes available like access to clinical tests where we
would reasonably expect you to participate."

4. I have failed as a farmer in that my 3 plants which
Health Canada officials expect to produce 90 grams only
produced 25 grams, less than I need for one week, let alone
3 months. The new amendments have limited my access to
sufficient marijuana to cope with my illnesses. A
hydroponics shop owner has offered to apply for an exemption
to legally grow it for me.

5. Ideally, none of these problems would occur if my
exemption also included the exemption against importation
from nations where marijuana is legal. If qualified sick
people like myself are permitted to produce it, possess it
and consume it, importing it from a jurisdiction where it is
legal to cultivate is a necessary amendment to obtain my
medicine.

6. I'm almost out of marijuana, virtually broke with debts I
can't pay. My cablevision has just been cut off.

My Hydro bill is almost $300 to grow 3 plants with lighting
that could have grown 85.

This and the stress of coping with these government
officials is killing me.

7. This Affidavit is made in support of an application
pursuant to Section 18 for judicial review to:

1) strike the amendment limiting the dosage the Applicant
may use in treating these serious illnesses on the grounds
that the medical opinion of the Health Canada officials is
unqualified, unconscionable and in error;

2) strike down the amendment that halves the period of the
exemption on the grounds that doubling the Applicant's and
his doctor's paperwork serves no valid purpose;

3) strike the amendment threatening revocation of the
Applicant's Exemption if he does not act as a guinea pig in
experimental trials on the grounds that this is a matter
best left to the medical opinion of his doctor.

4) amend the original exemption to permit the Applicant to
authorize an incorporated hydroponics shop to produce his
medicinal supply on the grounds that all conditions already
met by the Applicant can be met by a qualified hydroponic
grower;

5) strike the prohibition against importing the Applicant's
legal supply of marijuana from a legal source of marijuana
such as Holland.

Jean Charles Pariseau
Sworn before me at the city
of Ottawa on Fri Sept 15 2000.
---

>MedPotMarc

Quote: This and the stress of coping with these government
officials is killing me.

Dear Friends!
The question is: "Should sick and dying people be forced to
go through this government hell and stress - for a
beneficial medicinal plant that never killed anyone?"
Sooner or later, our government will have to face their
mischiefs and suffer the consequences.
We suffer enough as it is, and we need our government's help
and compassion - not more stress and pain.
Jean-Charles was right in his affidavit - they are killing
us faster! Marc

JCT: Exactly 7 days after finishing up at the U.N.
Millennium Assembly in New York on the UNILETS resolution
for interest-free time-based bank accounts for everyone, I
filed the first application for judicial review against
Health Canada for what they did to Jean Charles Pariseau.
You can read the Pariseau v. Health Canada medpot
court battles in my earliest posts at
http://yahoogroups.com/group/medpot/messages/1 for
3 Pariseau Affidavit for Judicial Review of Exemption Amendments
4 Federal Court Pro-Marijuana Challenge
6 Federal Court grants Judicial Review of Marijuana Rules
13 Health Canada Marijuana Affidavit
14 Health Canada Marijuana Affidavit Reply
17 Federal Court Marijuana Memorandum
21 Health Canada Marijuana Memorandum
23 Pariseau can grow more marijuana

R.I.P. Jean-Charles Pariseau


--
Abolitionist 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 519-753-0645 USENET: can.politics