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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flu: Beware of Toxic Ground

Since viruses of flu mutate, the government made clear:
They highly recommend take vaccinations every year.
If you inject some little germs, your system will fight back,
And build the antibodies that your body now may lack.

I got my vaccination for the bird flu like they said,
My vaccination for the swine flu or I might be dead.
My vaccination for the A flu, B flu, C flu, three,
My vaccinations for the yearly threats I'm told they see.

I took my state-blessed germs in duty's 50 years of shots,
I don't know if it helped too much but they sure cost us lots.
And worse those vaccinations, it may sadly soon be found,
Do nothing more than put on tomb: "Beware of toxic ground."

JCT: Terry filed his notice of appeal of the Tulloch decision
which dismissed Terry's appeal against the Clement decision
refusing to return Terry's marijuana seized by Canada Post.

Court File No.
                      COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Between:
                          Terrance Parker
                                                 Appellant-Accused
                                and
                       Her Majesty the Queen
                                              Respondent/Plaintiff

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL

PARTICULARS:

Place of Judgment: Brampton

Name of Court: Superior Court of Justice

Case File No: CR-08-2484

Section 24 (Return of controlled substance)

Name of Judge: Mr. Justice Tulloch

Date of judgment: Sep 30 2009

THE APPELLANT APPEALS the refusal to return the controlled
substance to Appellant as a question of law alone.

THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL are that the prohibitions on possession
and cultivation of marihuana are no longer known to law and must
be re-enacted by Parliament because:

1) the Oct 7 2003 Hitzig decision did not resurrect the
prohibitions once struck down which only Parliament can do,
POLCOA (Parliament Only Legislates, Courts Only Abrogate) after:
a) the Ontario Parker decision invalidated the CDSA prohibition
on possession of marijuana since Aug 1 2001; or
b) the Alberta Krieger decision invalidated the CDSA prohibitions
on cultivation and possession of marijuana since Mar 18 2003; or

2) if it is held that the Hitzig Court did resurrect the old
prohibition which remains known to law:
a) the recent Sfetkopoulos and Beren rulings found that the re-
enactment on Dec 3 2003 of the unconstitutional conditions which
had been struck down in Hitzig had once again rendered the
exemption process unconstitutional; or
b) the Mar 15 2001 decision of Justice Pitt extends the exemption
granted by the Ontario Court of Appeal to Mr. Parker from the
criminal prohibitions until the government has complied with the
court's ruling until it is overturned on appeal;
c) evidence showing 1 in 60 Ontario doctors participating makes
the exemption illusory.

THE RELIEF SOUGHT is an Order declaring that the prohibitions on
the possession and cultivation of marijuana remain unknown to law
since they were deemed repealed and not re-enacted by Parliament.

APPELLANT'S ADDRESS FOR SERVICE:
2209-55 Triller Ave.
Toronto, Ontario, M6R-2H6
Tel: 416-533-7756 Fax: 519-753-0645
E: terryparkerjr@...

Dated at Toronto on Oct 30 2009
Terrance Parker
TO: The Registrar of the Ontario Court of Appeal

JCT: So Terry continues on to Ontario's highest court to
overruled the Hitzig and J.P. decisions on the court bringing the
marijuana prohibitions back to life instead of Parliament.

JCT: Due to the latest Application to Prohibit his marijuana
charges because of POLCOA, Parliament Only Legislates, Courts
Only Abrogate, by Ken Surgent in Windsor Ontario, I've had to
redo the kits to include all the latest positive jurisprudence,
Sfetkopoulos and Beren, to our armaments.

All the forms for the latest Application for Prohibition of
marijuana charges have been posted at the files section of my
medpot announcement group at
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/MedPot/files under the names
prsco*.docx for Prohibition at Superior Court of Ontario:

Court File No. _________
              ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
         (Criminal Division - ______________ Region)
Between:
                   ________________________
                                            Applicant/Accused
                             and
                    Her Majesty the Queen
                                         Respondent/Plaintiff

               NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR PROHIBITION

TAKE NOTICE THAT on ______________ at _____am or so soon
thereafter as can be heard the application to a judge at the
courthouse at __________________________________________for

A) an Order prohibiting prosecution of all charges relating
to marijuana under the CDSA as unknown to law on the grounds that
1) Parliament has not re-enacted the S.7 cultivation and S.4
possession prohibitions which underpin all other marijuana
prohibitions in the CDSA since they were struck down by the
Ontario and Alberta Courts of Appeal; or
2) if the prohibitions were somehow resurrected without
Parliament, that the Sfetkopoulos and Beren decisions create a
similar period of retrospective invalidity dating back to
December 3 2003, the date that s.41(b.1) and 54 were re-
introduced into the MMAR pursuant to the Court in R. v. J.P.'s
ruling that the combined effect of Parker and Hitzig meant there
was no constitutionally valid marijuana possession offence
between July 31 2001 and Oct 7 2003, the date the MMAR were
constitutionally rectified by the decision in Hitzig.

B) And for an Order staying all charges for marijuana as abuse of
the court process on the grounds all statutes related to
marijuana are of no force and effect and ordering the Crown to
cease and desist all marijuana prosecutions until Parliament re-
enacts a new constitutionally valid prohibition with a new
constitutionally valid exemption.

C) And an Order, in the absence of proof that all inmates
convicted since the marijuana prohibitions were repealed have
been released, that cites the Ministry of Justice for contempt of
this Court by continuing prosecution after Crown Attorney S.
David Frankel acknowledged to the Supreme Court of Canada in R.
v. Krieger that the S.7 Cultivation and S.4 Possession
prohibitions had been struck down by the highest court in Alberta
and did not dutifully inform Canada's Law Enforcement to cease
and desist arrests under the repealed statutes and now Crown
Attorney Sean Gaudet says:

D) And an Order expunging the criminal records of all those
convicted since the prohibitions have been invalidated.

E) And for any Order abridging the time for service, filing, or
hearing of the application, or amending any defect as to form or
content of the application, or for any Order deemed just.

Documentation to be used:
App.1: 2000 Jul 31 Parker Ont.C.A. Order on CDSA S.4....(A1)
App.2: 2003 Mar 18 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: 2004 Nov 22 AIDS submission....................(A18>
App.13: 2009 Sfetkopoulos Sean Gaudet Memorandum.......(A19)

Dated at __________________ on ______________ 2004

_____________________________
Applicant/Accused Signature

Name: ___________________________________
Address: _________________________________________________
Tel: _________________________  Fax: _____________________
Email: ______________________________

TO: Ministry of Justice
TO: The Registrar of the Court


                      APPLICANT'S FACTUM

OVERVIEW

1. This is an issue of national importance. Epilepsy.ca cites 4
deaths every day from among the 400,000 known epileptics and yet,
after 10 years, due to the onerous Health Canada hurdles set
before their doctors to get their prescriptions filled, there are
only just over 4000 Health Canada exemptees in all of Canada for
all illnesses with only a small fraction from Canada's epileptic
community. 15,000 epileptics died in the 10 years it took for
Health Canada to exempt 4000 Canadians. The vast majority of
Canada's epileptics remain unexempted, including Terrance Parker.
The MMAR's failure to provide a constitutionally acceptable
medical exemption creates a genocide among Canada's epileptics.
No epileptic should be without a cannabis joint. No epileptic
should have been, should be, left unexempted. No prohibition
against marijuana can exist while the majority of Canada's
epileptics remain unexempted.

PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS

2. On Dec 10 1997, Ontario Provincial Judge Sheppard stayed
S.4(1) and S.7(1) charges against Terrance Parker ruling:
"Mr. Parker will be granted immediate protection under Section
24(l) of the Charter of a stay of proceeding with respect to
count I (cultivate a narcotic, Section 6(l) N.C.A.) and the
September 18, 1997 count (possession of a controlled substance,
Section 4(l) of the C.D.S.A). All plant material (three plants)
seized from him by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services on
September 18, 1997 is to be returned to him forthwith..."
"...It is ordered pursuant to Section 52, that Section 4(1) and
Section 7(1) of the C.D.S.A. be read down so as to exempt from
its ambit persons possessing or cultivating Cannabis (a schedule
II substance) for their personal medically approved use.
www.cyberclass.net/turmel/sheppard.htm

3. On July 31 2000, the Crown's appeal against the S.4(1)
possession ruling but not against the S.7(1) cultivation remedy,
was dismissed by Ontario Court of Appeal Justices Rosenberg,
Catzman and Charron who Ordered "the marijuana prohibition in s.4
of the CDSA to be invalid" for not providing access for medical
purposes and 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
appealed Parker's win on Section 7 too.
App.1: 2000 Jul 31 Parker Ont.C.A. Order on CDSA S.4 repeal
www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2000//july/parker.htm

4. Though Parker was not deprived of his rights in that year,
2400 to 4600 Canadian epileptics who were not exempted with him
were deprived of their right to life and every year since then.
With the Attorney General for Canada erroneously holding that the
CDSA prohibition had been saved by the MMAR, the courts have
continued wrongly convicting hundreds of thousands of Canadians.

5. On Dec. 11 2000 in R. v. Krieger, Alberta Justice Acton took
care of that omission by declaring the prohibition in Section
7(1) to be of no force and effect and suspending her ruling for 1
year:
"[44] I am satisfied that s. 7(1) of the CDSA deprives Mr.
Krieger and those who are similarly situated of their rights
under s. 7 of the Charter to the extent that it prohibits these
individuals from producing raw cannabis marihuana for their own
therapeutic purposes. I am also convinced that such deprivation
is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental
justice...
[55] I am prepared to agree with the Applicant that s. 7(1) of
the CDSA should be struck down to the extent that it deals with
production of cannabis marihuana. If s. 4 were before me I, like
the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Parker, supra, would strike
down the prohibition against possession of marihuana because to
do otherwise would be, to use Dr. Kalant's word, "inhumane" to
Mr.Krieger under the circumstances."
www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/1998-
2003/qb/Criminal/2000/2000abqb1012.pdf

6. 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 Ontario
Court of Appeal later ruled in R. v. J.P. had failed to forestall
the Parker Court's invalidation of the s.4(1) prohibition.

7. On Aug 1 2001, Parker's exemption expired without the MMAR
having provided the necessary medical access which is why the
Court of Appeal in R. v. J.P. ruled the marijuana prohibition in
s.4 of the CDSA became invalid after July 31 2001.

8. On Sep 15 2001, Health Canada sent Parker a s.56 ministerial
exemption after his constitutional exemption had expired, six
weeks too late.

9. On Nov 28, upon a motion by Krieger Crown Attorney Scott
Couper for an interim order extending suspension of Acton's order
"until the appeal or until further order of the Court of Appeal,"
Alberta Court of Appeal Justice O'Leary granted an interim Order
extending the suspension "until further order of the court."
www.cyberclass.net/turmel/oleary.pdf

10. On Mar 15 2002, the day after Parker's s.56 exemption had
expired, Ontario Superior Court Justice Romain Pitt using his
criminal jurisdiction granted Parker an "Order extending the
constitutional exemption granted to the applicant by the Ontario
Court of Appeal until the Government has complied with the
court's ruling."
www.cyberclass.net/turmel/pittorde.jpg

11. On Dec 4 2002, Alberta Court of Appeal Justices Wittman,
Costigan, and LoVecchio Order dismissed the Crown's appeal
against Acton J.'s invalidation in R. v. Krieger :
"[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
www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/1998-
2003/ca/Criminal/2003/2003abca0085.pdf

12. The Calgary Herald and Sun reports misrepresented the
striking down of the S.7 and S.4 prohibitions as a personal
exemption victory for Krieger and that the O'Leary interim stay
still prevented the Acton ruling from taking effect. Calgary
Herald's Daryl Slade wrote that "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.." Also, it informed: "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

13. Once the Court of Appeal for Alberta became functus officio
after issuing its further final Order on Mar 18 2003, that
court's interim Order by O'Leary J.A. staying the Acton
invalidation of the prohibitions in Section 7(1) and, by
implication, Section 4(1) of the CDSA, also lapsed. The only
court not yet functus officio was the court of last resort and
only a stay emanating pursuant to S.65.1(1) of the Supreme Court
of Canada Act could stay the Acton invalidation from taking
effect.

14. Section 65.1(1) of the Supreme Court of Canada Act:
"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."

15. No stay was obtained.

16. On Jan 2 2003, in R. v. J.P., Windsor Provincial Judge
Phillips quashed a s.4(1) marihuana possession charge laid on
April 12 2002, after Terry Parker Day, declaring:
[7] It is submitted by the Applicant therefore, that
Rosenberg, J. A.'s judgment had the effect of declaring
invalid the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 (1) effective on
July 31, 2001 - twelve months after the release of the
reasons in R. v. Parker. It is therefore argued that in keeping
with s. 2(2) of the Interpretation Act(2), the enactment was
deemed repealed.
(2)See the Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21 at Section
2(2) which states: "For the purposes of this Act, an enactment
that has been replaced is repealed and an enactment that has
expired, lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect is deemed to
have been repealed."
[8] The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act was not amended
by Parliament, and no prohibition on the simple possession
of marihuana has been re-enacted.
cannabislink.ca/legal/windsordecision.htm

17. On Jan 9 2003, Lederman J. ruled in Hitzig v. HMQ that the
MMAR had failed to comply with the court's ruling, as had Pitt J.
in 2002,  and suspended his ruling 6 months.
www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/2003/2003onca10584.html

18. On May 14 2003, to demonstrate that the prohibition was no
longer valid in Canada on the day before the Minister of Justice
was to introduce legislation to newly re-criminalize the
prohibition 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.
App.5: 2003 May 14 Turmel holds back marijuana bill

19. On May 15 2003, the Chretien Government held back the
marijuana bill and S.7 nor S.4 were never re-enacted after being
deemed repealed. Parliament has never re-enacted any new
prohibitions since the repeal of S.7 and S.4 prohibitions by the
Alberta Court of Appeal.

20. On May 16 Rogin J. in R. v. J.P. dismissed the Crown appeal
of the Phillips decision on the technicality that ruled that once
the legislation was going to be struck down on Terry Parker Day,
a new statute had to be enacted by Parliament, not a fix of the
statute that was being struck down. This is the third Ontario
Superior Court Justice to have ruled that the MMAR had not
functioned to save the CDSA.
[9] (1) On July 31, 2000, Rosenberg J. in R. v. Parker, severed
marihuana from s. 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
and declared it invalid. Section 4 as it relates to substances
other than marihuana remains in full force and effect.
(2) The declaration of invalidity was suspended for a period
of 12 months from July 31, 2000. Mr. Parker was granted an
exemption from the marihuana provision in s. 4 during the
period of suspended invalidity.
(3) As of July 31/01, s. 4 of the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act as it related to marihuana was invalid...
[15] It follows from these reasons, that neither Count 1 nor
Count 2 contains an offence known to law...
[16] The Crown Appeal from the judgment of Phillips J. is
dismissed.
Steven Rogin, Justice Released: May 16, 2003
www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/2003/2003onsc10765.html

21. With no new legislation to replace that struck down by the
Krieger court, on May 16 2003, in the Crown Memorandum to the
Supreme Court of Canada Crown 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 S. David Frankel culpability clause

22. An application to vacate cannot be brought ever once the
Final Order closed closed the file and the court became functus
officio. O'Leary J.A.'s interim Order out of a court that is
functus officio does not need to be vacated. After the Crown did
not obtain a Supreme Court stay pursuant to S.65., Frankel's only
recourse was to argue that the stay out of the functus officio
court continued in effect.

24. On Dec. 23 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the
Crown's Application for leave to appeal the Acton decision
declaring the prohibition against cultivation of marijuana in
section 7(1) of the CDSA to be of no force and effect. From the
December 23 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada Bulletin of
Proceedings of the Krieger decision:

"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."

NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal law - Cannabis
marihuana - Cultivation and trafficking - Accused cultivating
cannabis marihuana for his own medical needs and supplying others
as well - Trial judge finding that prohibition on production of
cannabis marihuana infringing accused's s. 7 Charter rights and
not saved by s.1. Whether The Court of Appeal erred in holding
that s.7 of the Charter guarantees the right to grow (and by
implication, possess) marihuana, to anyone with a medical need
for the drug...
App.10: 2003 Dec 23 Krieger Supreme Court Order
App.10b: Supreme Court of Canada Bulletin Dec 23 2003
www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/bul/2003/html/03-12-23.bul.html

24. On Oct 06 2003, in another application to quash marijuana
charges as unknown to law in R. v. Kurtiss Lee Masse, Judge Chen
ruled:
"[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.
www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2003/03/p03_0328.htm

25. On Oct 7 2003, Ontario Court of Appeal Justices Doherty,
Goudge, and Simmons ruled in R. v. J.P. that the invalidation of
the prohibition in s.4(1) by R.v. Parker had taken effect after
July 31 2001 noting that on April 12 2002 when J.P. was charged:
[11] Having determined in Hitzig that the MMAR did not create a
constitutionally valid medical exemption... the prohibition
against possession marihuana in s.4 of the CDSA was subject to
the exemption created by the MMAR. As we have held, the MMAR did
not create a constitutionally acceptable medical exemption... It
follows that 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.

26. The same court in Hitzig had amended the MMAR by striking
down four (4) cancerous sections and opined that it had the
effect that "prohibition is now no longer invalid, but is of full
force and effect" but refused to include it in the Order herein
when requested:
[2]...We have concluded that for those people the MMAR as drafted
by the Government do not create a constitutionally acceptable
medical exemption... the remedy we would impose, namely to
declare invalid only five specific sections of the MMAR. This
renders constitutional the medical exemption as described in the
remaining provisions of the MMAR, thereby rendering the
possession prohibition in s. 4 of the CDSA constitutional: R. v.
Parker, supra.
App.7: 2003 Oct 07 Hitzig Ont.C.A. Order for MMAR fix
App.8: 2003 Oct 07 Turmel Ont.C.A. Order for Parker Day
www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/october/hitzigC39532.htm

27. On Dec. 3, Health Canada reinstituted cancerous sections
41(b.1) and 54 of the MMAR which had been struck down in Hitzig
as unconstitutional limitations on medical users' rights.

28. On Dec 8 2003, the Federal Crown stayed all 4000 pending
s.4(1) possession charges laid after July 31 2001 across Canada.
App.9: 2003 Dec 08 Turmel stays 4000 since Parker Day

29. On the same day the Supreme Court dismissed the Crown's
Krieger application for leave, the Court issued the Malmo-Levine
ruling that recreational need cannot impede the government's
power to prohibit marijuana despite though the Parker ruling
certified that medical need does. Appellant agrees the Government
can, our point is that the government has not made use of the
power established in Malmo-Levine to do just that since the
Parker and Krieger invalidations.

30. On April 1 2004, John Turmel wrote the Attorney General
demanding redress for the injustice done to those convicted under
the invalid sections with no response.
App.11: 2004 Apr 01 Turmel to A.G. for 100,000 more

31. The Nov 22 2004 submission of the Canadian AIDS society on
the proposed amendments to the Marihuana Medical Access
Regulations calls on Health Canada to comply with the Ontario
Court of Appeal's ruling in Hitzig and requested s.41(b.1) and
s.54 be removed from the MMAR.
turmelpress.com/cdnaids.htm

32. On Oct 27 2008, the Federal Court of Appeal in Attorney
General of Canada v. Sfetkopoulos found that the MMAR re-
institution of MMAR sections 41(b.1) and 54 had made the MMAR
once again unconstitutional limitations on rights.
www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2008/2008fca328/2008fca328.html

33. On Feb 02 2009, Justice Koenigsberg agreed with Sfetkopoulos
in R. v. Beren:
[127] Adopting the reasoning in Hitzig and Sfetkopoulos, further
bolstered by the evidence before this court, I find ss.41(b.1)
and 54.1 of the MMAR contrary to s. 7 of the Charter.
[129] As the matter now stands, the federal Court of Appeal in
Sfetkopoulos declared s. 41(b.1) invalid and refused to suspend
that declaration. The case is under appeal to the Supreme Court
of Canada.
[133] ..Consistent with the reasoning in Schachter v. Canada,
[1992] 2 S.C.R. 679, 93 D.L.R. (4th) 1, these provisions, unduly
restricting DPLs from growing for more than one ATP or growing in
concert with two other DPLs, are hereby severed from the MMAR.
[135] The government, in my view, will need time to put in place
appropriate monitoring and enforcement mechanisms in relation to
such compassion clubs.  Thus, it is appropriate to stay the
effect of this declaration of invalidity for one year.
"Koenigsberg J."
www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/09/04/2009BCSC0429.htm

34. In the Crown's Memorandum for leave to appeal Sfetkopoulos to
the Supreme Court of Canada, Crown Sean Gaudet pleaded:
[33] The judgment in this case may create confusion concerning
the constitutional validity of the prohibition against the
possession of marihuana as set out in S.4 of the CDSA and
therefore compromise existing prosecutions under the CDSA. In R.
v. Poelzer, for example, a prosecution currently underway in B.C.
Supreme Court, defence counsel has argued that, by virtue of the
Ontario Court of Appeal's judgment in R. v. J.P. the invalidation
of s41(b.1) of the MMAR retrospectively invalidates s.4(1) of the
CDSA in respect of marihuana. The Court in R. v. J.P. ruled that
the combined effect of Parker and Hitzig meant there was no
constitutionally valid marijuana possession offence between July
31 2001 and Oct 7 2003, the date the MMAR were constitutionally
rectified by the decision in Hitzig. Courts may construe the
Federal Court of Appeal's decision as creating a similar period
of retrospective invalidity dating back to December 3 2003, the
date that s.41(b.1) was re-introduced into the MMAR."
johnturmel.com/gaudet.htm

35. In the Applicant's Memorandum for a stay:
1. The Federal Court of Appeal has declared s.41(b.1) of the MMAR
constitutionally invalid.
17. This Court has recognized that there is a public interest in
avoiding harm to users and others caused by marihuana
consumption." The effect of the judgment of this Court is to
jeopardize this public interest in two ways:
(1) Courts are being urged and may interpret the FCA's judgment
as retrospectively invalidating the offence of marijuana
possession, trafficking and/or production in sections 4,5, and 7
of the CDSA.
(2) The public interest in maintaining the offence provisions of
the CDSA
21. Members of the criminal defence bar have argued that s.4 of
the CDSA is retrospectively invalid as a result of the judgments
of the courts below. For example, defence counsel in the R. v.
Poelzer appeal before the B.C. Supreme Court argued that the
FCA's judgment means that Parliament failed to implement a
constitutionally acceptable scheme for ensuring a licit supply of
marijuana for medical reasons, as required in the Ontario Court
of Appeal in Hitzig, and that the prohibition of possession of
marijuana is therefore of no force and effect. While this
argument was rejected by the Court in that case, this has not
prevented it from being raised in other prosecutions. In a
judgment issued on Feb 2 2009, without written reasons, Justice
Koenigsberg of the B.C. Supreme Court declared that s41(b.1) of
the MMAR to be unconstitutional on the same grounds as the FCA in
this case, but suspended the declaration of invalidity for one
year. She went further and, on the same grounds, struck down
S.54.1 of the MMAR, which restricts the number of licensed
growers who can grow in common."

36. On April 23 2009, the Supreme Court dismissed the application
for leave to appeal and unconstitutional sections 41(b.1) and 54
of the MMAR continue to taint the medical exemption process.
www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/cms-sgd/dock-regi-
eng.aspx?cas=32944

PART II - ISSUES

37. A) Should an Order be granted prohibiting prosecution of all
charges relating to marijuana under the CDSA as unknown to law on
the grounds that
1) Parliament has not re-enacted the S.7 cultivation and S.4
possession prohibitions which underpin all other marijuana
prohibitions in the CDSA since they were struck down by the
Ontario and Albert Courts of Appeal; or
2) if the prohibitions were somehow resurrected without
Parliament, that the Sfetkopoulos and Beren decisions create a
similar period of retrospective invalidity dating back to
December 3 2003, the date that s.41(b.1) and 54 were re-
introduced into the MMAR pursuant to the Court in R. v. J.P.'s
ruling that the combined effect of Parker and Hitzig meant there
was no constitutionally valid marijuana possession offence
between July 31 2001 and Oct 7 2003, the date the MMAR were
constitutionally rectified by the decision in Hitzig.

38. B) Should an Order be granted staying all charges for
marijuana as abuse of the court process on the grounds all
statutes related to marijuana are of no force and effect and
ordering the Crown to cease and desist all marijuana prosecutions
until Parliament re-enacts a new constitutionally valid
prohibition with a new constitutionally valid exemption.

39. C) Should an Order be granted, in the absence of proof that
all inmates convicted since the marijuana prohibitions were
repealed have been released, that cites the Ministry of Justice
for contempt of this Court by continuing prosecution after Crown
Attorney S. David Frankel acknowledged to the Supreme Court of
Canada in R. v. Krieger that the S.7 Cultivation and S.4
Possession prohibitions had been struck down by the highest court
in Alberta and did not dutifully inform Canada's Law Enforcement
to cease and desist arrests under the repealed statutes and now
Crown Attorney Sean Gaudet says:

40. D> Should an an Order be granted expunging the Criminal
Records of all those convicted since the prohibitions were
invalid.

PART III - ARGUMENTS

41. A)1. In R. v. J.P., Justices Phillips, Rogin, and in R v.
Masse, Justice Chen, make very clear that when a statute has been
invalidated by the courts as unconstitutional, it is to be deemed
repealed pursuant to the Interpretation Act. The Parker Court
invalidated the possession prohibition, the Krieger Court
invalidated the cultivation prohibition and the J. P. Court of
Appeal said the invalidated laws were only absent until the MMAR
was fixed which they said they had. The Interpretation Act says
"repealed," the Ontario Court of Appeal says only "absent until
fixed." The Interpretation Act rules.

42. A)2. If the Hitzig court did resurrect the prohibitions, on
December 3 2003, Health Canada re-instituted two of the bad
conditions; Section 41.(b.1) of the MMAR found to be flawed in
Sfetkopoulos and R. v. Beren as well as Section 54 found to be
flawed in Beren. If four Hitzig flaws were enough to taint the
MMAR, so too are re-instituted ones. The Sfetkopoulos and Beren
decisions create a similar period of retrospective invalidity
dating back to December 3 2003, the date that s.41(b.1) and 54
were re-introduced into the MMAR pursuant to the Court in R. v.
J.P.'s ruling that the combined effect of Parker and Hitzig meant
there was no constitutionally valid marijuana possession offence
between July 31 2001 and Oct 7 2003, the date the MMAR were
constitutionally rectified by the decision in Hitzig.

43. B) The Ministry of Justice DID NOT amend the Criminal Code to
reflect the Parker invalidation in 2001, nor the Krieger
invalidation in 2003, nor to reflect the Sfetkopoulos decision.
Yet, Canada's lawyers and judges say: It's still in the Code so
it must still be valid." An Order staying all charges for
marijuana as abuse of the court process on the grounds all
statutes related to marijuana are of no force and effect must be
granted to remedy their dereliction.

44. C) The Ministry of Justice's failure to reflect the judgments
of the courts in the Criminal Code show a clear contempt at all
levels of the court and should be treated as such.

45. D) The Ministry's failure to expunge its errors during the
earlier two years of legislative invalidity show an obstinate
dereliction that can only be corrected by order of this court.

REMEDIES SOUGHT:

46. Applicant seeks:
A) an Order prohibiting prosecution of all charges relating
to marijuana under the CDSA as unknown to law on the grounds that
1) Parliament has not re-enacted the S.7 cultivation and S.4
possession prohibitions which underpin all other marijuana
prohibitions in the CDSA since they were struck down by the
Ontario and Albert Courts of Appeal; or
2) if the prohibitions were somehow resurrected without
Parliament, that the Sfetkopoulos and Beren decisions create a
similar period of retrospective invalidity dating back to
December 3 2003, the date that s.41(b.1) and 54 were re-
introduced into the MMAR pursuant to the Court in R. v. J.P.'s
ruling that the combined effect of Parker and Hitzig meant there
was no constitutionally valid marijuana possession offence
between July 31 2001 and Oct 7 2003, the date the MMAR were
constitutionally rectified by the decision in Hitzig.

B) And for an Order staying all charges for marijuana as abuse of
the court process on the grounds all statutes related to
marijuana are of no force and effect and ordering the Crown to
cease and desist all marijuana prosecutions until Parliament re-
enacts a new constitutionally valid prohibition with a new
constitutionally valid exemption.

C) And an Order, in the absence of proof that all inmates
convicted since the marijuana prohibitions were repealed have
been released, that cites the Ministry of Justice for contempt of
this Court by continuing prosecution after Crown Attorney S.
David Frankel acknowledged to the Supreme Court of Canada in R.
v. Krieger that the S.7 Cultivation and S.4 Possession
prohibitions had been struck down by the highest court in Alberta
and did not dutifully inform Canada's Law Enforcement to cease
and desist arrests under the repealed statutes and now Crown
Attorney Sean Gaudent says:

D) And an Order expunging the criminal records of all those
convicted since the prohibitions have been invalidated.


SCHEDULE A
Authorities to be cited

R. v. Beren Koenigsberg BC Superior Court
www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/09/04/2009BCSC0429.htm

Hitzig v. HMTQ Lederman Ontario Superior Court
www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/2003/2003onca10584.html
Hitzig Court of Appeal
www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/october/hitzigC39532.htm

R. v. J.P. Ontario Court of Justice
Phillips cannabislink.ca/legal/windsordecision.htm
R. v. J.P. Ontario Superior Court Rogin
www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/2003/2003onsc10765.html
R. v. J.P. Ontario Court of Appeal
www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/october/jpC40043.htm

R. v. Krieger Alberta Court of Appeal
www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/1998-
2003/qb/Criminal/2000/2000abqb1012.pdf
R. Krieger Supreme Court of Canada Bulletin Dec 23 2003
www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/bul/2003/html/03-12-23.bul.html

R. v. Masse BC Provincial Court Chen
www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2003/03/p03_0328.htm

R. v. Parker Ontario Provincial Court Sheppard
www.cyberclass.net/turmel/sheppard.htm
R. v. Parker Ontario Court of Appeal
www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2000//july/parker.htm

AGoC v. Sfetkopoulos Federal Court of Appeal
www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2008/2008fca328/2008fca328.html
AGoC. v. Sfetkopoulos Supreme Court of Canada
www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/cms-sgd/dock-regi-
eng.aspx?cas=32944


SCHEDULE B
Relevant legislative Provisions

Interpretation Act Section 2.2
canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-i-21/latest/rsc-1985-c-i-
21.html

Dated at _________________ on _____________________
_______________________________
For the Applicant/Accused:
Address:_____________________________
_____________________________
Tel/fax: _____________________________
Email: __________________________

JCT: James files his Reply to the Supreme Court of Canada
yesterday about his appeal being dismissed as an inmate appeal:

File Number: #33365
Appeal Court No: C49904
                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
           (ON APPEAL FROM THE ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL)
BETWEEN:
                        James Earl Turner
                                                        Applicant
                                              Appellant in appeal
                               and
                      Her Majesty The Queen
                                                       Respondent
                                             Respondent in appeal

                        APPLICANT'S REPLY
                   JAMES EARL TURNER, APPLICANT

1. The Crown has repeatedly stated that the Applicant was
derelict in pursuing the appeal despite the delay being
attributed to the Ottawa Court Reporter's death, not to the
Applicant.

2. The Crown did not respond about the failure comply with the
Rules of the court:
16. Rule 16(1) "EXCEPT IN AN INMATE APPEAL, all parties to an
appeal shall deliver a factum." There are no exceptions for
skipping the filing of factums in a non-inmate appeal so
Appellant asked the Registry if this R. v. Turner appeal was the
first to go to hearing without any factums in the record?
17. Rule 18(1) "EXCEPT IN AN INMATE APPEAL, the appellant shall
serve on every other party to the appeal one copy of the appeal
book, one copy of the transcript and one copy of the appellant's
factum and immediately thereafter shall file with the Registrar
proof of service of the appeal book, the transcript and the
factum..." There are no exceptions for skipping the filing of the
transcripts, factums, proofs of service in a non-inmate appeal
either.
18. Rule 18(2) The appellant shall file with the Registrar two
copies of a certificate of perfection stating..." It doesn't even
say "except in inmate appeals," so everyone's got to file a
Certificate of Perfection. Is this the first appeal ever
scheduled without a Certificate of Perfection or has the Crown
been skipping them for inmate appeals already?
19. Rule 18(3) "The appellant shall perfect the appeal within 90
days after the transcript has been delivered to the Court of
Appeal." Transcripts were mailed to the Court of Appeal on Aug 7
2009 leaving Appellant until Nov to perfect the appeal.

3. As to the Registrar of the Ontario Court of Appeal's error in
scheduling the appeal without having first verified that Rule
18(3) requiring transcripts, Rule 16(1) requiring facta, Rule
18(2) requiring Certificates of Perfection and Rule 18(1)
requiring proofs of service for non-inmate appeals had been
complied with, the Crown has no comment.

4. The Crown has obsessed with the fact that some of these
arguments have been raised before in R. v. Turmel and that makes
skipping the rules all okay. The case is frivolous and vexatious
so the rules don't have to be followed. But new case law such as
Sfetkopoulos and R. v. Beren have recently been handed down
bolstering the argument that the prohibition remains invalid.

5. The Crown alleged that Mr. Turner filed a notice of appeal
from the dismissal of the prohibition application on January 20
2009, 20 days beyond the time for appeal and without seeking any
extension of time to appeal. The Registry does not accept notices
of appeal 20 days beyond the time for appeal.

6. Also, since the Crown felt the transcript was not necessary,
rather than seek an order dispensing with it, the Crown just
skipped it as unnecessary!

7. The Crown says the only question raised by the applicant
relates to the propriety of the dismissal of his appeal when it
is the propriety of an inmate appeal for a non-inmate that is at
issue.

8. As to the Court of Appeal's erring in using Inmate Appeal
Rules for a non-inmate, at no point, despite mentioning the
"appeal" "hearing" dozens of times, not once does the Crown
mention that this was an inmate appeal.

9. As to the Court of Appeal erring in dismissing the Inmate's
Application for Leave to Appeal when no Inmate Application for
Leave to Appeal had been filed by the non-inmate Appellant, the
Crown remains silent.

10. As to the Inmate Appeal Court erring in dismissing an Inmate
Appeal as abandoned because the guards couldn't find the
prisoner, again the Crown has no response.

11. As for the Crown side-stepped the Rules of Procedure by mis-
labeling the Appellant an inmate so as to take advantage of
exemptions to the normal rules that Appellant was due, facta of
arguments from both parties in the record, no answer.

8. As for the Crown's argument that this is not a question of
national importance, a precedent letting the Crown drag non-
inmates though inmate courts is quite important.

PART V - ORDER SOUGHT

Applicant seeks an order granting leave to appeal the judgment of
Ontario Court of Appeal Justices Stephen Goudge, Robert
Armstrong, and Robert Blair which dismissed the Appellant's
Appeal against the Nov 26 2008 decision of Justice Lalonde.


Dated at Ottawa on Oct 19 2009.
For the Applicant:
James E. Turner
C-2501 Prince of Wales
Ottawa, ON, K2C 3H1
Tel/fax: 613-212-3344/221-9042
Email: jamesturner1326@...

JCT: Now we sit back and watch 3 Supremes give the okay to this
incredible maladministration of justice. Har har har. Nyuk nyuk.

JCT: What can I say when I have to parse someone who's wrong:

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
R. v. Parker, 2009 CanLII 51516 (ON S.C.)
Date:   2009-09-30
Docket: CR-08-2484
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2009/2009canlii51516/2009canlii51516.html
Decisions cited Hitzig v. Canada, 2003 CanLII 30796 (ON C.A.)
231 D.L.R. (4th) 104  177 C.C.C. (3d) 449  14 C.R. (6th) 1  111
C.R.R. (2d) 201  177 O.A.C. 321
R. v. Krieger, 2006 ABPC 259 (CanLII)  [2007] 1 W.W.R. 12  41
C.R. (6th) 214  65 Alta. L.R. (4th) 12
R. v. Krieger, 2003 ABCA 85 (CanLII)  327 A.R. 88  225 D.L.R.
(4th) 183  18 Alta. L.R. (4th) 227
R. v. Parker, 2000 CanLII 5762 (ON C.A.)  49 O.R. (3d) 481  188
D.L.R. (4th) 385  146 C.C.C. (3d) 193  75 C.R.R. (2d) 233  37
C.R. (5th) 97  135 O.A.C. 1
Wood v. R., 2006 NBCA 49 (CanLII)  301 N.B.R. (2d) 159  210
C.C.C. (3d) 526  39 C.R. (6th) 358

B E T W E E N:
TERRENCE PARKER
Terrence Parker, Self-Represented
Appellant

JCT: Hey, he forgot to mention the Agent for the Appellant.

- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Mr. James Gorham, for the Respondent
Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
[On appeal from the Order of Clements J. dated December 7, 2007]
Tulloch J.

[1] Mr. Terrence Parker is fifty-three years old. For over fifty
years he has suffered from grand mal epilepsy, which results in
his suffering from three to five grand mal seizures per week
while on prescription medication. During the 1980's Mr. Parker
began keeping a journal with respect to his manifested symptoms
while smoking marijuana on a daily basis. He found that while
consuming marijuana daily in addition to taking his prescription
medicine, he suffered no grand mal seizures at all, but did
suffer some petit mal seizures. As a result, Mr. Parker's
treating physician, Dr. Douglas Sider, formed the opinion that
marijuana was of a medical benefit to Mr. Parker.

[2] In an affidavit filed by Mr. Parker, he states that his
doctor found that increased daily usage of marijuana in addition
to his prescription drugs usually results in virtually no
seizures of any kind. Whereas, if he does not use marijuana,
within three days he begins to experience seizures again, and
will have anywhere from three to five grand mal seizures per
week, and anywhere from 15 to 80 petit mal, partial complex, fall
and jacksonian seizures per week. Mr. Parker states that he has
derived very substantial benefits using marijuana from 1969 to
the present. Unfortunately for Mr. Parker, marijuana usage has
not been legalized in Canada during these years, and so he often
finds himself in a situation of conflict between his medical
needs and the legal constraints surrounding the possession and
cultivation of marijuana.

[3] For over twenty years, Mr. Parker has been challenging these
laws, and has to date, achieved a significant amount of success.

[4] One of the most significant results of Mr. Parker's legal
efforts saw the enactment of the Marijuana Medical Access
Regulation (MMAR) on July 30th, 2001. The MMAR is a regulatory
scheme enacted by the Federal Government to permit the possession
and "personal-use production of marijuana by persons who in
consultation with their medical practitioner are able to
establish a medical need." The establishment of the MMAR was a
direct response to one of Mr. Parker's court challenges: R. v.
Parker 2000 CanLII 5762 (ON C.A.), (2000), 49 O.R. (3d) 481 (Ont.
C.A.).

[5] Mr. Parker is before the court once again, this time
appealing the decision of Clements J., denying his application
pursuant to section 24 of the Control Drugs and Substances Act
(the CDSA), for the return of marijuana intercepted by Canada
Post and seized by police. Mr. Parker's appeal concerns the
proper interpretation of the Canadian jurisprudence on the
medical use of marijuana and the application of the MMAR. He also
appeals the trial judge's refusal to permit him to tape record
the proceedings.

Historical Chronology

[6] Mr. Parker's quest for the liberalization of the marijuana
laws started in 1987 when he was charged with simple possession
of marijuana.

[7] Mr. Parker was tried in the Brampton Provincial Court before
His Honour Judge Langdon, as he then was. Mr. Parker advanced a
defence of necessity and submitted a medical opinion from his
treating physician, Dr. Sider, which essentially stated Mr.
Parker's use of marijuana was medically necessary. Mr. Parker
adduced evidence that he suffered from a long history of grand
mal epilepsy, and that continued attempts at treatment, including
two surgical procedures, were ineffective in controlling the
seizures. Dr. Sider's medical report concluded:
Terry has had many side effects over the years due to his anti-
convulsant medications, which have prevented their perhaps more
efficacious use in higher dosages. These side effects are well-
recognized in the medical literature. Hence, from a medical and
quality-of-life point-of-view, I am of the opinion that it is
medically necessary, in order to obtain optimal seizure control,
that Terry regularly uses marijuana in conjunction with his other
anti-convulsant medications.

[8] The court accepted Mr. Parker's necessity defence and he was
acquitted of simple possession. The Crown appealed the decision
to the District Court, but the appeal was dismissed, and no
further appeal was filed.

[9] Ten years later in 1997, Mr. Parker was tried on three
related marijuana charges: one count of simple possession, one
count of possession for the purpose of trafficking, and one count
of cultivation under the Narcotic Control Act (the NCA). Before
Sheppard J., Mr. Parker argued that the marijuana laws breached
his s. 7 Charter rights to life, liberty and security of the
person, because of his particular medical needs. He also provided
independent expert evidence substantiating the medical benefits
of marijuana consumption.

[10] Mr. Parker was found guilty of the charge of possession for
the purpose of trafficking as he had made a voluntary statement
to the police that although he used most of the marijuana in his
possession, he also "gave some to some people who need it." As
such, the possession for the purpose charge was made out.
However, the court was satisfied that Mr. Parker had established
a medical need to control his epilepsy through the use of
marijuana. The charge of simple possession and the charge of
cultivation were stayed, and the court ordered the return of the
plant materials seized by the police to Mr. Parker. The trial
judge also found that the prohibition sections in both the CDSA
and the NCA infringed Mr. Parker's s. 7 rights under the Charter,
and read into both Acts an exemption for possession and
cultivation by persons for their "personal medically approved
use.": R. v. Parker, [1997] O.J. No. 4923 (Prov. Ct.) para. 72.

[11] The Crown appealed the decision with respect to the charge
of possession under the CDSA, but did not appeal the stay of the
cultivation charge under the NCA. The Court of Appeal affirmed
the trial judge's finding that Mr. Parker required marijuana to
treat his epilepsy and upheld the stay, however, the court set
aside the order for the return of plant materials to Mr. Parker.
The court declared the prohibition under the CDSA
unconstitutional and of no force and effect. The declaration was
suspended for one year to give Parliament the opportunity to
amend the legislation. Mr. Parker was also granted a personal
exemption for one year.

[12] In response to the Court of Appeal's decision, on July 30th,
2001, Parliament enacted the MMAR, to provide a regulatory scheme
to permit the possession, and "personal use production" of
marijuana by persons who can establish a medical need in
consultation with their medical practitioner.

[13] For Mr. Parker, the exemption granted by the Court of Appeal
expired on July 31, 2001. He subsequently applied for and was
granted a six-month extension under s. 56 of the CSDA until March
14, 2002.

JCT: He missed the 6 weeks where Parker was unprotected and which
brought down the law before they corrected their mistake and sent
him a 6-month exemption 6-weeks too late.

[14] On March 15, 2002, Mr. Parker successfully brought an ex
parte motion before Pitt J. to extend the Court of Appeal's
constitutional exemption "until the government has complied with
the court's ruling" in Parker. On appeal by the Federal Crown,

JCT: This criminal remedy was not on appeal to the Ontario Court
of Appeal by three judges. It was sent to Civil Court to be set
aside as a default judgment by one equal "can't-do-that" judge.

the order was set aside because the court was satisfied that the
failure of the Federal Crown to appear on the application before
Pitt J. was due to "accident, mistake or insufficient notice"
within the meaning of Rule 38.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

JCT: Despite this being a criminal remedy that had to be
appealed, not set aside.

The Court of Appeal agreed

JCT: And once again broke its own rules, a real habit of Justices
Doherty Goudge and Simmons.

and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied.

JCT: And we all know how much that means.

[15] Meanwhile in Alberta, in the case of R. v. Krieger, 2003
ABCA 85 (CanLII), 2003 ABCA 85, the Alberta Court of Appeal
struck down s. 7 of the CDSA prohibiting the cultivation of
marijuana, suspended the declaration of invalidity for one year
and granted Mr. Krieger a personal exemption from the CDSA based
on his medical need. The validity of the MMAR was not raised
before the Alberta Court of Appeal. Leave to appeal to the
Supreme Court was denied.

JCT: ????

[16] In 2003, the substantive issues raised by Mr. Parker in his
2002 application before Pitt J., including the continuation of a
personal exemption, were dealt with in two other applications. In
Hitzig v. Canada 2003 CanLII 30796 (ON C.A.), (2003), 231 D.L.R.
(4th) 104 (Ont. C.A.), the trial judge declared the MMAR
unconstitutional because of the absence of a legal supply of
marijuana for those persons entitled to posses it under the MMAR.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Hitzig's request to
continue his personal exemption from the possession and
cultivation of marijuana. While the court concluded that the MMAR
did not create a constitutionally acceptable medical exemption
with respect to persons who have a medical need to use marijuana
to treat symptoms of serious medical conditions, it was not
appropriate to grant Mr. Hitzig a personal exemption from the
CDSA. The court held that the appropriate remedy was to declare
ss. 34(2), 41(b), and 54 of the MMAR invalid. The court found
that this modified MMAR would be constitutionally sound as a
medical exemption to s. 4 of the CDSA.

JCT: Two years after it had been dead and the Interpretation Act
said it took Parliament to being it back alive, not the courts.

[17] Three years later in Alberta, subsequent to the enactment of
the MMAR, Mr. Krieger was back before the court on marijuana
related charges. This time he was charged with trafficking
marijuana under s. 5 of the CDSA.

JCT: And this other 2006 charge has nothing at all to do with our
2003 declaration of invalidity of s.7(1) cultivation and, by
implication, s.4(1) possession prohibitions on marijuana. Or so
said David Frankel.
[18] At his trial, Mr. Krieger admitted that he trafficked in
marijuana twice. He sent marijuana to individuals in Manitoba who
were in medical need of it. Mr. Krieger used marijuana to obtain
relief for his multiple sclerosis. As a result, he founded an
organization to distribute marijuana to individuals who suffered
from medical problems and could not obtain relief through
conventional means. Members had to submit an application
supported by documentation as to their condition, but Mr. Krieger
was prepared to supply drugs to individuals who did not provide
an application signed by a doctor or documentation from a doctor
verifying their illness. At trial, Mr. Krieger challenged the
constitutionality of the MMAR, pursuant to s. 7 of the Charter.
He sought a judicial stay of proceedings and a declaration that
he was exempt from the provisions of the CDSA with regard to his
distribution of marijuana to those who were in medical need of
it. The court rejected Mr. Krieger's argument and convicted him,
holding that the regulatory requirements under the MMAR were
constitutional. The court found that the evidence indicated that
the regulations under MMAR worked successfully and persons in
need of medical marijuana were authorized to possess it. The
court also found that physicians participated in the program: R.
v. Krieger 2006 ABPC 259 (CanLII), (2006), 65 Alta. L.R. (4th) 12
(Alta. Prov. Ct.).

JCT: Notice this has absolutely nothing to do with our argument
that the Krieger Court of Appeal in Alberta did to Section 7(1)
cultivation what the Parker Court of Appeal in Ontario did to
Section 4(1) possession. Everything after is short-circuited if
the law wasn't alive no matter how many times Krieger went back
to court.

[19] In British Columbia, the courts have upheld the
constitutionality of the MMAR. In the case of R. v. Kubby,
[2005] BCCA 640, the British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed
Mr. Kubby's petition to declare s. 4 of the CDSA and the MMAR
invalid as contrary to s. 7 of the Charter. Likewise in R. v.
Wood, 2006 NBCA 49 (CanLII), 2006 NBCA 49, the New Brunswick
Court of Appeal rejected a constitutional challenge to s. 5(2) of
the CDSA and the MMAR, concluding that the regulatory scheme put
in place by the government following Hitzig was constitutionally
valid.

JCT: And we explained how Kubby had not even put up a case.

The Application Under Appeal:

[20] The application judge dismissed the appellant's application
to have marijuana discovered by Canada Post and seized by police
returned to him. The application judge concluded that the
appellant had not established under s. 24 of the CDSA that he is
a person lawfully entitled to possession of the marijuana, absent
compliance with the MMAR. In a very thorough and reasoned
decision, he made the following findings:

1) The Sheppard Exemption (R v. Parker trial decision)
[21] First, the application judge rejected the appellant's
argument that the exemption for cultivation of marijuana under s.
6(1) of the NCA granted by Sheppard J. at trial in 1997 was still
in force because it was not specifically overturned by the Court
of Appeal. The trial judge provided two reasons for rejecting the
appellant's argument:
1) It seems clear that the Court of Appeal would have dealt with
the NCA offence in the same manner as the possession offence
under the CDSA, and would have granted an exemption for one year;
and
2) The issue was moot because the NCA had been repealed and there
was no reason to declare s. 6(1) invalid. It does not follow that
any exemption granted would attach in respect of similar or
identical legislation under the CDSA.

JCT: And of course, I had not dropped the Sheppard exemption and
not raised it upon appeal. It was the one ground I dropped and it
now finds its way here.

[22] Further, the application judge noted that the Appellant knew
that the exemption granted by the Court of Appeal applied for
only one year.

2) The 2002 Order Extending the Exemption

[23] The application judge also concluded that he was bound by
the Court of Appeal decision confirming that the 2002 order had
been properly set aside.

JCT: He was bound by the Ontario Court of Appeal Justices Doherty
Goudge and Simmons' decision confirming that the 2002 criminal
order by Pitt had been properly set aside in civil court as a
default judgment. Har har har har.

He agreed with the Respondent Crown that the appellant's
submissions amounted to a collateral attack on the decision of
the Court of Appeal.

JCT: Of course over-ruling the Court of Appeal with 5 judges was
on our mind.

3) Had the prohibition been deemed repealed pursuant to the
Interpretation Act?

[24] Further, the application judge rejected the appellant's
argument that the prohibition against possession of marijuana in
the CDSA had been deemed repealed pursuant to s. 2.2 of the
Interpretation Act once it had been declared of no force and
effect in R v. Parker. He noted in this regard that the Court of
Appeal's decision in R v. Hitzig that the prohibition against
possession of marijuana was in full force and effect effectively
disposed of this issue.

JCT: Pursuant to the JP decision, the prohibition wasn't
repealed, only "absent a constitutionally acceptable medical
exemption." The famous 6 words added to the Parker Court's
wording by the J.P. court.

4) Does R v. Krieger grant the Applicant access to marijuana
without compliance with the MMAR?

[25] The application judge found that the law in Ontario
prohibits cultivation or possession of marijuana outside the
regime of the MMAR, as constitutionally approved in Hitzig. He
rejected the Applicant's assertion that Krieger allowed the
applicant to operate outside the regulations.

JCT: Our assertion wasn't what Krieger allowed, it's what Krieger
disallowed, prohibition on cultivation of marijuana in section
7(1) of the CDSA. Notice how the issue was ducked by dealing with
two negatives instead of one positive.

5) Was the Applicant "grandfathered" under the MMAR scheme and
therefore exempted from the regulations?

JCT: We dropped this one with the Sheppard argument.

[26] The application judge rejected the appellant's assertion
that Hitzig created an exemption for him because he has
established his medical need for marijuana.

JCT: Actually, it was JP where they said all people had to do was
show a medical need to be exempted from their charges.

The application judge found that the following statement of the
Court of Appeal in Hitzig, and relied on by the appellant, must
be read in the context of the constitutionality of the
regulations: "Those who establish medical need are simply
exempted from it."

JCT: I think that comes from JP. May be wrong. I'll be in the
factum.

He found that the statement should be read to mean that those who
are able to establish a medical need in accordance with the
regulations are exempt from the MMAR.

JCT: That's right. The judge added a few words to get what it
should mean rather than just confine himself to what they said.

[27] The appellant had effectively argued that the MMAR was
unconstitutional because the lack of physician co-operation made
the scheme ineffective. The application judge noted that while
this may be a valid issue to be considered, there was no
application before the court to decide that issue, nor could one
properly be brought.

JCT: I thought the 1 in 60 in Ontario was fact enough.

He further noted that the material submitted by the appellant on
this point was anecdotal and there was no record on which to make
such a determination.

6) Tape Recording of Proceedings

[28] Lastly, the application judge denied the Appellant the
opportunity to tape record the proceedings, instead ordering that
the Appellant be provided with an official transcript at the cost
of the Court. The Crown opposed the application to tape record
the proceedings because of prior concerns about the differences
between the personal transcription and the official one. Further,
the Crown asserted that Mr. Turmel (the agent for Mr. Parker)
posts these potentially inaccurate versions on the internet.

Positions of the Parties

Mr. Parker
[29] Notwithstanding the recent approach that various courts in a
variety of provinces in Canada have taken with respect to the
validity and constitutionality of the provisions of the CSDA and
NCA, and the regulatory scheme under the MMAR, Mr. Parker asserts
that he is unable to comply with the MMAR. Mr. Parker claims that
he is unable to obtain the required medical authorization because
the Ontario Medical Association has advised doctors not to
authorize the use of medical marijuana. He asserts that his
doctor will not sign the documentation required by Health Canada.

[30] Mr. Parker submits that the 2002 order for an extension of
his constitutional exemption from the CDSA was properly granted.
The appellant submits that the matter was improperly set aside
under the Rules of Civil Procedure, despite being a criminal
matter. Accordingly, the appellant submits that the application
judge erred in finding that he was bound by the Court of Appeal's
decision.

JCT: First time the civil doing the criminal is mentioned.

The Respondent - Department of Public Prosecution

[31] In response, the Department of Public Prosecution asserts
that Mr. Parker has not applied for coverage under the MMAR and
has not genuinely tried to find a physician to support his
application since 1997. The Respondent points to statistics to
demonstrate that the evidence shows that the MMAR regime is
successfully ensuring that persons with medical need are provided
with marijuana and there is no lack of physician participation.
JCT: Right, 1 in 60 doctors.

They also assert that the January 10, 2008 decision of Deputy
Judge Strayer in Sfetkopoulos v. Canada (Attorney General),
[2008] FC 33, which declared para. 41(b.1) of the MMAR
constitutionally invalid as inconsistent with s. 7 of the
Charter, is of no force and effect for the purposes of this
proceeding. The decision only invalidated s. 41(b.1), not the
entire MMAR.

JCT: Ah, CDSA died 2 years when MMAR was bad with 4 flaws, we say
CDSA died 6 years when MMAR was bad with 2 flaws.

Furthermore, the Federal Court of Appeal has stayed the decision
pending the resolution of an appeal by the Attorney General.

JCT: We told him the Supreme Court had ruled! The stay was gone.
The Gaudet Goodie took effect.

Analysis

[32] The central issue in this appeal concerns the interpretation
of previous decisions and their effect on the exemption of Mr.
Parker from the MMAR. The appellant has not demonstrated that the
application judge erred in his interpretation and application of
those prior decisions.

JCT: But now we have more evidence the law was dead. Are we going
to say Parker can't have his pot because the judge made a
righteous not-completely-informed wrong decision?

[33] At the time the marijuana was seized, the appellant did not
have a valid exemption from the MMAR scheme and was therefore not
entitled to possess of marijuana.

JCT: If the law was dead pursuant to Parker, Krieger,
Sfetkopoulos, he was. x

[34] The application judge properly concluded that he was bound
by the Court of Appeal's decision that the 2002 order was
properly set aside. He also properly concluded that he was bound
by the Court of Appeal's decision in Hitzig that the prohibition
against possession of marijuana was in full force and effect.

JCT: He properly concluded that he was bound to follow bad
orders.

Krieger does not provide protection for the Appellant to
cultivate or possess marijuana outside the MMAR regime.

JCT: We're waiting for rebuttal of our argument that Alberta's
highest court killed cultivation in Krieger like Ontario's
highest court killed possession in Parker.

[35] Further, the Appellant did not establish on the record that
the lack of physician co-operation had made the scheme
ineffective and, as the application judge noted, the Crown had
provided evidence to rebut the anecdotal evidence of the
appellant on this point.

JCT: The Crown's evidence shows that 1 in 60 doctors were
participating. Yes, the Crown's evidence rebuts the allegation I
did not make that none participate but it does not rebut the
allegation I did make that 1 in 60 is ineffective.

[36] On the issue of the tape recording of the proceedings,
reference must be had to the Practice Direction for s. 136 of the
Courts of Justice Act:

Subject to any order made by the presiding judge as to the non-
publication of court proceedings, and to the right of the
presiding judge to give such directions from time to time as he
or she may see fit as to the manner in which an audio recording
may be made at a court hearing pursuant to s.146 [now s.136] of
the Courts of Justice Act, the unobtrusive use of a recording
device from the body of the courtroom by a solicitor, a party
acting in person, or a journalist for the sole purpose of
supplementing or replacing handwritten notes may be considered as
being approved without an oral or written application to the
presiding judge.

JCT: Wow. Big news. Don't have to ask any more. Just have the
Ontario Superior Court Tulloch ruling from Parker and the even
higher Ontario Court of Appeal MacPherson ruling from Turner in
reserve and you can unobtrusively secretly turn on your tape.
Anyone who doesn't is an idiot.

[37] In this case the appellant provided a written application
which asserted that the recording was for the sole purpose of
supplementing or replacing handwritten notes. However, the
appellant did not rebut the Crown's assertion about the posting
of personal transcripts on the Internet. The appellant also did
not indicate at trial, or in his submissions on appeal, why the
application judges alternative was unsatisfactory or otherwise
prejudiced the appellant.

JCT: I guess I didn't get the chance to mention how transcripts
took months from back-logged court reporters at high cost and
tape could be listened to right away for no cost to anyone.

In my view, the Crown's assertion that the appellant has not
demonstrated prejudice from the denial of the opportunity to
record these proceedings in light of the order that the appellant
be provided with a transcript of the proceedings is compelling.
In the circumstances, given the lack of prejudice to the
appellant, the denial of a personal recording is not sufficient
to disturb the otherwise reasonable decision of the application
judge.

JCT: Next time, we have don't ask so the judge can't think about
making the mistake of saying no.

[38] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed on all grounds.
Tulloch J.
Released: September 30, 2009

JCT: We'll just have to repeat it all again.

Crown on Non-Inmate Turner's Inmate appeal

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

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

BETWEEN:
                        James Earl Turner
                                                        Applicant
                                                      (Appellant)
                               and

                      Her Majesty The Queen
                                                       Respondent
                                                     (Respondent)

           RESPONSE TO APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

                        Table of Contents

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


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

MJM: PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MJM: PART II - QUESTIONS IN ISSUE

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

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

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

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

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

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

MJM: PART III - ARGUMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MJM: In this case, an obstructionist appellant

JCT: Calling him names twice is twice as strong.

MJM: having filed a frivolous and vexatious appeal,

JCT: Treated with respect by brighter benches...

MJM: took no steps to advance that appeal

JCT: Same lie again, her own little reality.

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

JCT: The wrong court.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JCT: THe Inmate Court of Appeal...

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

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

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

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

MJM: No issue of national or public importance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MJM: He has demonstrated no issue of unsettled law.

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

MJM: or divergence in application of the law,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MJM: PART IV - SUBMISSIONS CONCERNING COSTS

20. The respondent makes no submission regarding costs.

PART V - ORDER SOUGHT

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

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

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

JCT: I was preparing to go to Montreal for the Quebec Social
Forum when I heard the news that Prime Minister Harper had called
4 byelections, none in Ontario, one in BC, one in Nova Scotia,
two in Quebec, on in Three Rivieres, about 1000km away and the
other in the downtown Montreal riding of Hochelaga, right beside
the University of Quebec at Montreal!

So between sessions at the Quebec Social Forum, I drove over to
Hochelaga and got my 100 signatures on my nomination paper over
the next few days and filed everything on Monday when leaving
town. So I got to kill 2 birds with 1 stone and if this Quebec
election is anything like the last one in Outremont, there'll be
no election debates and I won't even have to go back.

But if there are debates, I'll be there and like they reported
back in 1980s in another byelection "la tornade Turmel s'abat sur
Levis." The Turmel Tornado lands on Hochelaga? We'll see.

I had a particular successful line explaining how community
currency would work when I'd say: we'll pay kids with bus tickets
to take care of old people and take the bus tickets in payment of
taxeds by parents.

JCT: I'll be spending the weekend at the Quebec Social Forum in
Montreal. I'll be speaking on Sunday 9am.

These are the workshops I'll be attending:

L'economie de demain est circulaire
Date: Vendredi, octobre 9, 2009 - 14:00 - 18:00
In Solido
Comment s'enrichir en arretant de polluer et detruire? En
commencant a reparer et reconstruire? L'economie circulaire
integrale permet de le faire (base d'un veritable developpement
durable). Reduire le besoin de matieres premieres, optimiser les
cycles de vie des produits, viser zero-dechets, passer d'une
attitude de preneur a donneur, apporter les monnaies libres et
l'energie libre. In Solido est la pour mettre sur pied cette
economie dans un esprit solidaire.
IntervenantEs:
Anne Aster, fondatrice de In Solido
Langue: Francais
Salle: UQAM, V-1410

Tomorrow's economy is circular
How to get rich by stopping pollution and destruction? By
starting to repair and rebuild? The integral circular economy
premits it (basis of a true sustainable  development). REduce the
need for primary resources, optimize the product cycle, aim at
zero waste, change attitude from taking to giving, use free
currencies and free energy. In Solido is there to engineer this
economy in a spirit of solidarity.

SATURDAY

Lneconomie sociale en Argentine: situation et etudes de cas
Date: Samedi, octobre 10, 2009 - 09:00 - 10:45
Pascale Simard
En Argentine, les cooperatives de travail representent pour les
travailleurs un outil de developpement visant la reintegration
des 'exclus'. Des forces inherentes au modele hegemonique actuel
limitent leur portee et reduisent leur capacite a rompre avec le
neoliberalisme. Quelle est la portee de ces organisations qui
aspirent a agir comme outil d'inclusion? Presentation du cadre
institutionnel de l'economie sociale en Argentine et des
resultats d'une recherche terrain effectuee en 2008-09.
IntervenantEs: Pascale Simard, Maitrise es arts, Mondialisation
et developpement international, Universite d'Ottawa
Langue: Francais
Salle: CVM, 8.65

Social Economy in Argentina: situation and studies of cases
In Argentina, work cooperatives represent for workers a
development tool aimed at re-integration of the "excluded."
Inherent forces in the actual hegemonic model limits their reach
and reduces their capacity to cut away from neo-liberalism.
What's the scope of these organisations that hope to act as a
tool of inclusion? Presentation of the institutional framework of
the Argentine social economy and the results of research done in
2008-9.
------------------------------

S'attaquer au capitalisme ou l'amenager : le capitalisme est-il
humanisable? (Ateliers des nouveaux cahiers du socialisme)
Date: Samedi, octobre 10, 2009 - 11:15 - 13:00
Les nouveaux cahiers du socialisme
Au Quebec et ailleurs, la crise fait resurgir la critique du
capitalisme. Pour les dominants, il s'agit plutot de reamenager
le capitalisme. Ne faudrait-il pas aller plus loin que de simples
amenagements? Quelle sorte de systeme economique peut-on mettre
de l'avant? Comment l'Etat peut-il interagir avec la production
et la distribution de la richesse? Peut-on amenager le
capitalisme ou faut-il faire table rase?
Langue: Francais
Salle: CVM, 8.64

Attack capitalism or manage it: is capitalism humanisable?
In Quebec and elsewhere, the crash has caused a resurgence of
criticisms of capitalism. Shouldn't we go farther than simple
management? What kind of economic system can we put forth? How
can the state interact with the production and distribution of
wealth? Can we manage capitalism or must we start over?
------------------------------

L'integration alternatives : ALBA, Unasur, Mercosur
Date: Samedi, octobre 10, 2009 - 14:30 - 16:15
Alternatives
L'enterrement de la ZLEA n'a pas freine l'integration
continentale, qui a plutot pris de nouvelles formes. Alors que
les negociations commerciales se poursuivent par des accords
bilateraux avec les Etats-Unis et des accords regionaux avec
l'Europe, plusieurs pays cherchent en meme temps a construire des
alternatives. Mercosur, Unasur et ALBA sont des tentatives de
creer une integration differente, moins axee sur le libre-
echange. Analyse, debat et perspectives sur ces initiatives.
IntervenantEs: Carolus Wimmer (politicologue, Venezuela), Jose
Miguel (CUBA), Thomas Chiasson Lebel (Quebec), Miguel Santibanez
(ALOP - Asociacion Latinoamericana de Organismos de Promocion al
Desarrollo)
Langue: Bilingue
Salle: UQAM, DS-R515

Integration alternatives: ALBA, Unasur, Mercosur
The burial of ZLEA hasn't stopped continental integration, which
has taken on nwe forms. Mercusur, Unasur, ALBA are attempts to
create a different integration, less based on free-trade.
Analysis and perspectives on these initiatives.
------------------------------

Une dette combien de fois payee
Date: Samedi, octobre 10, 2009 - 16:45 - 18:30
Comite pour la justice social (CJS)
Cet atelier examine l'histoire et les origines de la dette et de
la pauvrete dans les pays du Tiers-Monde. Si la presentation est
informative et historique, elle n'en oublie pas moins les
solutions possibles et incite le public a prendre conscience
ainsi qu'a se responsabiliser par rapport aux enjeux touchant la
justice sociale.
IntervenantEs: Jean Baptiste Ndiaye et Omar Omais
Langue: Francais
Salle: CVM, 8.77

The debt, how many tiumes paid?
This workshop examines the history and origins of the debt and of
poverty in Third World countries. Though informative and
historic, the presentation won't forget possible solutions and
will incite the public to be aware as well of their
responsibility to issues of social justice.
------------------------------

SUNDAY

JCT: Sadly, I'll miss:

La revolution bolivarienne: Le vrai et le faux
Date: Dimanche, octobre 11, 2009 - 09:00 - 10:45
Societe Bolivarienne du Quebec - Hands Off Venezuela (SBQ-HOV)
Lorsque nous entendons le mot "bolivarien," a quoi pensons-nous?
+ la Bolivie? Nous demystifierons ce terme tout en expliquant ce
qu'est la Revolution bolivarienne. Les medias la critiquent
souvent en disant qu'il s'agit d'un mouvement populiste dirige
par un dictateur. Que savons-nous de la realite du Venezuela et
de sa revolution? Qu'est-ce que le socialisme du 21e siecle?
Venez vous renseigner, voir des videos et discuter de la
resistance d'un peuple face a l'imperialisme americain.
IntervenantEs: - Ricardo Astudillo (President de la Societe
Bolivarienne du Quebec - Hands Off Venezuela) - Stephanie Vaudry
(Membre de la Societe Bolivarienne du Quebec - Hands Off
Venezuela)
Langue: Francais
Salle: UQAM, R-R150

The Bolivarian Revolution: the true and the false
When we hear the word "Bolivarian," what do we think of? Bolivia?
We'll demystify the term while explaining it.

JCT: Because I'll be giving my presentation:

UNILETS argents communautaires sans-interet autour du monde
Date: Dimanche, octobre 11, 2009 - 09:00 - 10:45
John Turmel
Un resume du developement des reseaux d'argents communautaires
autour du monde. UNILETS, LETS, SEL, JEU, Hours, Toronto Dollars,
Berkshares, QQ chinois, minutes cellulaires
IntervenantEs: John Turmel, B. Eng. (Banking systems engineering)
Parti Abolitionniste du Canada
Langue: Francais
Salle: CVM, 8.80

UNILETS, interest-free community currencies around the world
A recap of the development of community currency networks around
the world. UNILETS, LETS, SEL, JEU, Hours, Toronto Dollars,
Berkshares, Chinese QQ, mobile-phone minutes
------------------------------

La crise et apres...?
Date: Dimanche, octobre 11, 2009 - 10:45 - 12:30
ATTAC-Quebec
La crise globale actuelle revele les failles de notre systeme
economique. Nos gouvernements ont-ils vraiment appris des lecons
donnees par cette crise? Cet atelier reflechira sur les solutions
proposees par nos gouvernements et sur celles qui devraient
vraiment etre adoptees pour remettre la finance a sa place et
batir une societe plus juste : reglementation serree du secteur
financier, taxes internationales, eradication des paradis
fiscaux, renforcement des services publics, etc.
IntervenantEs: Robert Jasmin, president, ATTAC-Quebec Claude
Vaillancourt, secretaire, ATTAC-Quebec
Langue: Francais
Salle: CVM, 8.05

The crash and after
The actual global crash reveals the flaws in our economic system.
Have our governments really learned the lessons of this crisis?
This workshop will reflect on the solutions proposed by
governments and on those that should be adopted to put finance
backin its place and build a more just society: tight regulation
of the financial sector, international taxes, elimination of tax
havens, reinforcement of public servies, etc.

JCT: ATTAC were the first European group to let me make a
presentation on UNILETS back in 1999 in Paris and have many LETS
community currency supporters.
------------------------------

JCT: Here, I have a choice of two workshops:

Another world in construction: Solidarity economies in process
Date: Dimanche, octobre 11, 2009 - 16:45 - 18:30
David Barkin
I am a Mexican economist and would be pleased to participate by
contributing a lecture/discussion on activities in Mexico related
to "Solidarity and Social Economics" and the movement of
autonomous communities who are building their own alternatives to
the process of international economic integration.
IntervenantEs: David Barkin
Langue: Anglais
Salle: UQAM R-R150

Third World Debt: Who Owes Whom?
Date: Dimanche, octobre 11, 2009 - 16:45 - 18:30
The Social Justice Committee
This workshop delves into the history and origins of debt and
poverty in the Third World. This informative, interactive and
engaging workshop presents both problems and solutions by
installing in participants a sense of awareness, responsibility
and action.
IntervenantEs: Janina Grabs
Langue: Anglais
Salle: CVM, 8.77
------------------------------

JCT: I posted the CRTC's Response last time, here's my Reply:

File Number: #33319
Appeal Court No: 09-A-19
                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
           (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL)

BETWEEN:
                          John C. Turmel
                                                        Applicant
                                              Appellant in appeal
                               and
                  Canadian Radio-Television and
                  Telecommunications Commission
                                                       Respondent
                                             Respondent in appeal

                        APPLICANT'S REPLY
                     JOHN C. TURMEL, APPLICANT

PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Applicant, John Turmel, has sought leave to appeal the
order of the Federal Court of Appeal, 09-A-19, dated 22 July 2009
dismissing the applicant's leave to appeal Broadcasting Decision
CRTC 2009-184 dated 8 April 2009 ("CRTC Decision") which had
dismissed the applicant's complaint relating to being excluded
from an election debate program hosted by Rogers Cable
Communications Inc. ("Rogers") during the 2007 Ontario provincial
election in Brant because, pursuant to the Ontario Court of
Appeal's decision in R. v. CBC, subsection 27(4) of the
Broadcasting Regulations regarding the equitable allocation of
time did not apply to election debate programs because they are
not considered of a "partisan political character."

2. Paragraph 10(1)(e) of the Broadcasting Act empowers the
Commission to make regulations "respecting the proportion of time
that may be devoted to the broadcasting of programs, including
advertisements or announcements, of a partisan political
character and the assignment of such time on an equitable basis
to political parties and candidates." Under this provision, the
Commission has enacted several regulations requiring that, during
an election period, broadcasters allocate time for broadcasting
programs, advertisements or announcements of a "partisan
political character" on an equitable basis to accredited
political parties and rival candidates in the election.

3. On 15 March 1995, the Commission issued Public Notice CRTC
1995-44 which revised its policy set out in Public Notice CRTC
1988-142 entitled "A Policy with respect to Election Campaign
Broadcasting." The Commission noted that the Ontario Court of
Appeal had ruled in R. v. CBC that debates were not programs of a
partisan political character, and therefore, were not covered by
the Commission's regulations regarding the equitable allocation
of time during election periods. In light of this decision, the
Commission stated that it would no longer require that debate
programs feature all rival parties or candidates in one or more
programs.

4. The Commission reiterated this statement in Broadcasting
Circular 2007-5 issued in connection with the 2007 Ontario
provincial election. The Commission considered that, in light of
its determinations in Public Notice 1995-44, it was within
Rogers' editorial discretion to exclude participants from an
election debate program and accordingly dismissed the applicant's
complaint.

5. On 22 July 2009, the application for leave to appeal the CRTC
decision was denied by Federal Court of Appeal Nadon, Evans, and
Pelletier JJ.A. No reasons were given. The applicant is now
applying to this Court for leave to appeal the Federal Court of
Appeal's order.

PART II - QUESTION IN ISSUE

6. A) whether Rogers has the editorial discretion to exclude
participants from an election debate program pursuant to the
Ontario Court of Appeal ruling that televised debates excluding
some candidates are not of a "partisan political character;"

7. B) whether the Commission was derelict in revising national
policy to accept candidate exclusion rather then amend national
regulations to prevent candidate exclusion from future debates;

8. C) whether the Commission is derelict in not being able to
determine fair division before an unfair division occurs;

9. D) whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in not correcting
R. v. CBC's ruling that debates excluding candidates do not have
partisan political effect.

10. E) These errors affecting the Canadian national democratic
process are of national importance.

PART III - ARGUMENT

A) R. v. CBC illogical

11. Respondent notes: "Applicant's argument is premised on the
notion that Rogers could not exercise its editorial discretion in
an election debate program because the applicant was entitled to
an equitable share of time in the debate program pursuant to
subsection 27(4) of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations and
points out that pursuant to the Ontario Court of Appeal's
decision in R. v. CBC, subsection 27(4) of the Broadcasting
Distribution Regulations does not apply to election debate
programs because they are not considered programs of a "partisan
political character."

12. In R. v. CBC, the Ontario Court of Appeal rules:

"We are dealing with... the failure of a licensed television
broadcaster to allocate time on an equitable basis to a non-
participant..
Section 8 reads "During an election period, a licensee shall
allocate time for the broadcasting of programs, advertisements,
or announcements of a partisan political character on an
equitable basis to all accredited political parties and rival
candidates represented in the election."
We agree with Judge Kerr and Borins J. that the national debates
are not programs of a "partisan political character" within the
meaning of s.8 because they present a number of varying political
points of view..
While statements made by each of the participants are undoubtedly
partisan, the program itself clearly is not. In this regard, we
are of the view expressed by Arnup J.A. is apt: "In my view, a
partisan broadcast is one intended to favor one candidate over
the other or others, in an election..."
Programs prepared and presented by the licensee, or by someone
other than the political parties and candidates are not, in our
view, covered by the provisions of s.8..."

13. Before the R. v. CBC re-interpretation, the legislation was
interpreted to mean that broadcasts that have partisan political
influence must be shared equitably. That's what "partisan
political character" means, that it helps capture the vote. If
it's helping you get votes, it's of partisan political character.
After policy revision, we have the illogical proposition that
candidates may be excluded from debates because, while broadcasts
intended to favor one candidate over the others are improperly
partisan, broadcasts intended to favor two or more over the rest
are not improperly partisan. The net result of the R. v. CBC
ruling and the CRTC's revision of its policy, exclusion by media
of candidates from debates, should be warning enough of the
importance of the error that needs correcting.

B) CRTC Duty to Regulate

14. Respondent notes that, despite R. v. CBC, the Commission has
a duty to make regulations that would ensure that time in
election debate programs is shared equitably among all candidates
but says that this argument ignores the fact that the
Commission's authority to make regulations under section 10 of
the Broadcasting Act is permissive, not mandatory.

15. Since the national broadcast air-waves have been used
undemocratically under the current policy based on the R. v. CBC
decision, the R. v. CBC error that debates are not partisan to be
shared equitably must be struck down and the CRTC's failure to
deliver a fair game censured despite the Commission's authority
being not only permissive but maybe also mandatory.

16. Applicant also notes that in R. v. CBC: "In any event, there
is nothing to preclude a rethinking by the CRTC of the wording of
s.8 to more clearly effect the policy considerations with which
it is charged and concerned." The CRTC has not rethought the
wording to more clearly effect the policy considerations with
which it is charged, that is, making sure the national airwaves
are used fairly and democratically during elections.

C) CRTC Duty to Supervise

17. The Respondent also has a duty to supervise and is derelict
in not being able to determine whether a division is fair before
the unfair division occurs because it is so easily countable.

D) Federal Court of Appeal erred

18. The Federal Court of Appeal could have declared that debates
excluding some candidates are of improper partisan political
character and ordered the CRTC to comply with its Order that
debates excluding candidates be banned as improperly politically
partisan.

E) Importance

19. The Respondent argues that this application raises no
questions of law of public importance. The Applicant submits that
the new CRTC policy no longer requiring that debate programs
feature all rival parties or candidates is a profound change of
national import. The revised CRTC policy giving Big Brother power
to exclude some candidates from their staged debates on our
national airwaves raises questions of law of immense national
public importance.

PART V - ORDER SOUGHT

Applicant seeks an Order granting leave to appeal from the
judgment of Justices Marc Nadon, John Maxwell Evans, and Denis
Pelletier of the Federal Court of Appeal 09-A-19 made July 22
2009.

Dated at Brantford on Aug 25 2009.



_______________________
John C. Turmel, B. Eng.
8-37 Colborne St. E.,
Brantford ON N3T 2G3,
Tel/fax: 519-753-0645
Email: johnturmel@...

JCT: So now we see if the Supremes think the CRTC revising its
policy to permit Rogers to exclude candidates from debates is too
unimportant to be heard.

File Number: #33319
Appeal Court No: 09-A-19

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
           (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA)
BETWEEN:
                          John C. Turmel
                                                        Applicant
                                              Appellant in appeal
                               and
                  Canadian Radio-Television and
                  Telecommunications Commission
                                                       Respondent
                                             Respondent in appeal

              MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENT OF THE CANADIAN
        RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

CR: PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Applicant, John Turmel, has sought leave to appeal the
order of the Federal Court of Appeal, 09-A-19, dated 22 July 2009
dismissing the applicant's leave to appeal Broadcasting Decision
CRTC 2009-184 dated 8 April 2009 ("CRTC Decision"). The CRTC
Decision had dismissed the applicant's complaint relating to an
election debate program hosted by Rogers Cable Communications
Inc. ("Rogers") during the 2007 Ontario provincial election.

A History of the Applicant's Complaint

2. Applicant was a candidate in the 2007 Ontario general
election. On 18 September 2007, he participated in a debate
program hosted by Rogers on its community channel, Rogers TV, for
six candidates of the riding of Brant. At some point during or
shortly after the applicant made his opening statement, he was
removed from the set and did not participate further in the
debate.
Exhibits E, G. H of Applicant's affidavit dated Oct 4 2007.
Turmel v. CRTC 2008 FCA 405 at paras.3-4

JCT: It was during my opening statement. I've already corrected
this. Raising the other false possibility once again is lawying.

3. On 24 Sep 2007, the applicant filed a complaint with the
Commission alleging his removal from the debate amounted to
denying him an equitable share of a free-time partisan political
broadcast as he asserted was required by the Commission's
regulations and requesting that the Commission take action.
Exhibits E of Applicant's affidavit dated Oct 4 2007.
Turmel v. CRTC 2008 FCA 405 at para.5

4. On 4 October 2007, the applicant brought an application for
judicial review against the Commission. The applicant's request
for interlocutory relief was dismissed by Decary J.A. on 5 Nov
2007. The application for judicial review was dismissed by the
Federal Court of Appeal on 17 Dec 2008 on the grounds that the
Commission had not rendered a decision in relation to the
applicant's complaint which could be the subject of a judicial
review or against which relief could be sought.

5. On 26 Jan 2009, the applicant requested that the Commission
render a decision with respect to his complaint. On 8 April 2009,
the Commission issued the CRTC Decision dismissing the
Applicant's complaint.

B. Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2009-184

6. In the CRTC Decision, the Commission noted that it considered
the applicant's request that the Commission compel Rogers to
provide him with an equitable share in the election debate
program was now moot given that the election had already taken
place.

7. The Commission considered that the remaining issue raised by
the Applicant's complaint was whether Rogers had breached the
Commission's regulations regarding the equitable allocation of
time for programs of a partisan political character during an
election period. The Commission noted that the provision that
applied to Rogers in this case was subsection 27(4) of the
Broadcasting Regulations.

8. The Commission noted that in Public Notice 1995-44 it stated
that, pursuant to the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in R. v.
CBC, the Commission's regulations regarding the equitable
allocation of time did not apply to election debate programs
because they are not considered of a "partisan political
character."

JCT: The big R. v. CBC loser by Green Greg Vezina. Sounds so
stupid doesn't it. Debates don't have any partisan political
influence like ads do. Or 1-person interview. Debates not having
partisan political character is the big issue.

The Commissioner further noted that it had reiterated this
statement in Broadcasting Circular 2007-5 issued in connection
with the 2007 Ontario provincial election.

JCT: Reminding the media the Vezina decision lets them exclude
anyone they wish if they call it a debate.

9. The Commission considered that, in light of its determinations
in Public Notice 1995-44, it was within Rogers' editorial
discretion to exclude participants from an election debate
program who were not complying with the rules and format Rogers
had set for the program.

JCT: That it was within Rogers' editorial discretion to exclude
participants from an election debate program is the problem.
Notice how they throw in the superfluous qualifier "of those who
violate the rules" and when I argue they were bad rules I didn't
have to obey, they then refer to the Vezina decision giving them
the right to exclude me anyway.

10. As a result of these considerations, the Commission
determined that Rogers did not breach subsection 27(4) of the
Broadcasting Distribution Regulations and accordingly dismissed
the applicant's complaint.

11. The applicant applied for leave to appeal the CRTC decision
to the Federal Court of Appeal pursuant to subsection 31(2) of
the Broadcasting Act, which provides that an appeal lies from a
decision of the Commission on a question of law or jurisdiction
with leave of the Court.

12. Leave to appeal the Decision was denied by the Federal Court
of Appeal on 22 July 2009 (Nadon, Evans, and Pelletier JJ.A.) No
reasons were given.

13. The applicant is now applying to this Court for leave to
appeal the Federal Court of Appeal's order pursuant to section 40
of the Supreme Court Act.

C. Regulatory framework

14. Paragraph 10(1)(e) of the Broadcasting Act empowers the
Commission to make regulations "respecting the proportion of time
that may be devoted to the broadcasting of programs, including
advertisements or announcements, of a partisan political
character and the assignment of such time on an equitable basis
to political parties and candidates."

JCT: And if the regulations they have promulgated result in
candidates being excluded from debates, they need new ones.

15. Under this provision, the Commission has enacted several
regulations requiring that, during an election period,
broadcasters allocate time for broadcasting programs,
advertisements or announcements of a "partisan political
character" on an equitable basis to accredited political parties
and rival candidates in the election.

JCT: So broadcasts that have partisan political influence must be
shared equitably. That's what "partisan political character"
means, that it helps capture the vote. If the effect is helping
you get votes, it's of partisan political character.

16. On 15 March 1995, the Commission issued Public Notice CRTC
1995-44 which revised its policy set out in Public Notice CRTC
1988-142 entitled "A Policy with respect to Election Campaign
Broadcasting." The Commission noted that the Ontario Court of
Appeal had ruled in R. v. CBC that debates were not programs of a
partisan political character, and therefore, were not covered by
the Commission's regulations regarding the equitable allocation
of time during election periods. In light of this decision, the
Commission stated that it would no longer require that debate
programs feature all rival parties or candidates in one or more
programs.

JCT: That's the big issue, that the Commission no longer requires
that debate programs feature all rival parties or candidates.

PART II - QUESTION IN ISSUE

17. The Commission's submissions will address the following
issue:
(1) Whether this application raises any issues of public
importance that warrant granting leave to appeal.

JCT: That the Commission no longer requires that debate
programs feature all rival parties or candidates is a profound
change of national import.

PART III - ARGUMENT

18. The Commission submits that the applicant has not raised any
issues of public importance that merit a decision from this
Court.

JCT: That the Commission no longer requires that debate programs
feature all rival parties or candidates is a change not of
national import? (They repeated it wasn't important 3 times, I
can repeat how important it really is 3 times too).

19. While there is no doubt that this Court has the jurisdiction
to hear appeals from decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal
denying leave to appeal, this jurisdiction is to be exercised
sparingly.

JCT: Why do they always point out that the remedies I seem are
rarely granted? Is that a reason not to? Because it's rare?

20. The applicant argues that Rogers did not have sufficient
justification to remove him from the election debate program.

JCT: Let's presume an example where I should have been ejected,
say if I was continuing to speak past my time, interrupting
people when it wasn't my time, unfair interference, sure.

This argument is premised on the notion that Rogers could not
exercise its editorial discretion in an election debate program
because the applicant was entitled to an equitable share of time
in the debate program pursuant to subsection 27(4) of the
Broadcasting Distribution Regulations. However, as noted above,
pursuant to the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. CBC,
subsection 27(4) of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations
does not apply to election debate programs because they are not
considered programs of a "partisan political character."

JCT: My presumption Rogers did not have justification is premised
on my claim to ss.27(4) equitableness however the Vezina decision
says the equitableness rules don't apply to debates because they
have no effects of partisan political character. Har har har har.
Someday, in 100 years, they'll be reading these pleadings to the
highest court in the land and laughing too.

21. In R. v. CBC, the Ontario Court of Appeal established clearly
that election debates do not constitute programs of a "partisan
political character" within the meaning of the Commission's
regulations since they present a number of different political
viewpoints.

JCT: A number but not all viewpoints.

The court stated that "while the statements made by each of the
participants are undoubtedly partisan, the program itself clearly
is not."

JCT: One viewpoint wrong, a number but not all okay? It's not
clear at all why a debate with 1 out of 5 candidates is partisan
but 2 out of 5 is not. I can understand the rational for 5 out of
5 being impartially partisan or having an equal partisan effect,
but to say a debate of partisan political is not partisan is
silly. But that's at stake in this case. Not very important?

22. Beyond simply stating that the decision is "contradictory,"
the applicant has not raised any reason do doubt the decision in
R. v. CBC or the Commission's reliance on that decision.

JCT: Exclusion is democratic isn't contradictory?

Leave to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada was
denied.

JCT: So Vezina couldn't convince three Supremes of the importance
of media exclusion of candidates because debates aren't partisan!

23. The applicant further argues that, despite R. v. CBC, the
Commission has a duty to make regulations that would ensure that
time in election debate programs is shared equitably among all
candidates.

JCT: Right. It's their duty to ensure the access to free time on
the  public air-waves is fair.

This argument ignores the fact that the Commission's authority to
make regulations under section 10 of the Broadcasting Act is
permissive, not mandatory.

JCT: So they don't have the mandatory authority to make electoral
treatment democratic, they have a permissive authority, whatever
that means. They didn't explain. What's permissive authority to
do their duty? Authority but they don't have to if they don't
want to?

24. For the foregoing reasons, the Commission submits that this
application raises no questions of law of public importance.

JCT: The essence of democracy is not of public importance? For
the last time, that the Commission no longer requires that debate
programs feature all rival parties or candidates is a profound
change of national import.

PART IV - SUBMISSION ON COSTS

25. The Commission is not seeking costs.

PART V - ORDER SOUGHT

26. The Commission requests an order dismissing the application
for leave to appeal.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
September 17 2009
Regan Morris
Counsel for the Respondent
CRTC

JCT: The CRTC case why debates don't need all candidates.
My Reply in 10 days.

JCT: I've posted http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTL6KfYoyq8
St. Paul's mob scene from byelection debate and
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=63112625
a longer version of the evening's fracas. Lots of assaults.

And I've posted a video of yesterday's news reports from my blog
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSN_3J62Zmo
Finally, these online news reports from my blog at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05hg1Dd5IAE

St. Paul's By-Election Throwdown
http://torontoist.com/2009/09/st_pauls_debate_throw-down.php
http://torontoist.com/attachments/KimahliPowell/20090911St.Paul%27s3.jpg

> While all of the candidates tried to win over the audience
during the debate, the man who stole the show was John C. Turmel.
Turmel has a unique place in Canadian history: he holds the
Guinness World Record for having run and lost in the most
elections (sixty-eight to be exact). He fled the stage and
heckled the crowd in protest of a moderator's rule which forced
residents to direct their questions at specific candidates, thus
effectively limiting his opportunity to speak.

JCT: Hey, I heckled the moderators and my opponents too.

> The crowd heckled back, the police were called, and, at one
point, the debate had to pause as a group of gentlemen attempted
a citizen's arrest.

JCT: You can only do citizen's arrest for an indictable offence.
A summary conviction offence like trespass needs a badge to
effect arrest.

> The whole debacle made for great political theatre..

JCT: It's at the 5 minute mark in the Mob Scene youtube video.
---

Debate hits close to home on issues
http://mytowncrier.ca/debate-hits-close-to-home-on-issues.html
By Kris Scheuer
September 11, 2009
St. Paul's heads into the last week before election day

KS: Part of the evening was disrupted when independent candidate
John C. Turmel, who has run and lost 68 elections, got up from
the stage in protest. He objected that not all candidates were
asked  questions from voters.

JCT: Run in 69, lost 68, running in 70. I tried to post a comment
but "Your username is illegal or not allowed to register." Glad
to see he got the issue right, then again, Town Crier guys were
privy to my true objection, that not all was even allowed.
---

St. Paul's debate hits all the hot buttons
http://mytowncrier.ca/st-paul039s-debate-hits-all-the-hot-buttons.html
Around 350 residents pack First Unitarian to hear reps' views
By Kris Scheuer
September 11, 2009

JCT: Number of people went up.

KS: Independent John Turmel, who has run in and lost 68
elections, said, "I don't care how they tax us. It's how they
waste taxes."

The format then switched to questions from the floor with
responses limited to four candidates per query in an effort to
keep the debate rolling while allowing for as many questions from
voters as possible.

JCT: Some candidates should be excluded so others get more
question, we understand perfectly.

KS: This is when the atmosphere changed dramatically.
JOHN C. TURMEL causes a brief disturbance in the audience after
voters chose not to direct their questions to him.

JCT: An hour's worth of disturbance isn't "brief."

KS: Turmel objected and abruptly left the stage to hand out
literature and shout his protests distracting everyone in
attendance.

JCT: It was only shouting when someone shouted at me first,
otherwise, it was banter with the voters, even in the front row.

KS: The interruption made it hard for other candidates to speak.

JCT: No, it made it hard for some in the audience to hear.

KS: At one point and audience member shouted to Turmel, "You got your
15 minutes of fame. We will never forget you."

JCT: I'd rather be remembered for giving them interest-free
credit lines at the UNILETS or Bank of Canada but fighting for my
chance to comment on the issues isn't a bad thing to be
remembered for while the other shut-out candidates got the
voters' respect if not audience.

KS: Eventually police were called and were posted outside the
venue. In the end, they were not needed as calm was restored and
the debate continued after the brief stoppage.

JCT: My protest continued throughout the questions I was banned
from answering, not what I'd call calm being restored by some
magical force. I told one organizer to go get a badge.
---

http://www.eyeweekly.com/blog/post/71570--st-paul-debate-stalled
St. Paul debate stalled
by: Chris Bilton
September 11, 2009  5:35 PM Comments: (3)

CB: Thursday night's all-candidates meeting for the provincial
by-election in St. Paul's was a shit show like this city hasn't
seen since Kevin Clark's mayoral debate disruptions.

JCT: Here's the opinion of the foul-mouthed section.

CB: The meeting, in a packed auditorium of First Unitarian Church
at St. Clair and Avenue, was already shaping up to be a confusing
affair as the four main candidates were joined by a couple of
independents: a Libertarian, the Freedom party and John Turmel,
who I'm personally nominating for lifetime leader of the Stay the
Fuck Away From Politics Party.

JCT: Sounds like the foul-mouth section disapprove of my protest.

CB: Turmel, who's opening remarks came across like a stand-up
comedy routine,

JCT: Something wrong with putting things in a funny light? When
people get the joke, they get the premise so I use a lot of
jokes. My stand-up comedy routine is in the 25 minutes at the
myspace channel.

CB: claims to hold the Guinness World Record for most election
losses

JCT: Claims? with Guinness Record Certificate in hand?

CB: and seems to think that the voting public makes for the
perfect audience for his self-serving nonsense.

JCT: I wonder what self-serving purpose he thinks I have?

CB: When he is understandably ignored during the public-question
part of the evening,

JCT: The last thing the audience wants is more of the stand-up
comedy routine when it's so close to bedtime and they're looking
for something to put them to sleep.

CB: he throws a massive tantrum and spends the next 30 or so
minutes wandering around the auditorium muttering loudly about
unfairness and other bullshit while repeating "If I can't talk up
there, I'll talk back here" - effectively preventing anyone else
from hearing what the real candidates have to say about
accountability in public education and, well, I couldn't even
hear the questions, so who even knows.

JCT: Gee, he didn't get to hear them all so he didn't to get to
them at all.

CB: The Turmel show eventually comes to a head as the moderator
delivers him his helmet, asks him to leave and informs him that
the police have been called.

JCT: That's when the mob scene started and this story teller
stops.

CB: Which is to say that a considerable amount of time gets
wasted..

JCT: For protest of candidate exclusion.

Paul McKeever
Sep 12, 2009 12:26 PM
   Freedom Party is Not an "Independent" Freedom Party of Ontario
is a duly registered political party. Under Ontario election law,
candidates nominated by a duly registered political party are not
"Independents". Independents are candidates who lack the
nomination of a duly registered political party. Accordingly,
there were 6 (not 4) candidates at the debate who were not
independents. - Paul McKeever, Freedom Party candidate

KingofthePaupers
Sep 13, 2009 9:51 AM
   Lump on a log? "Freedom Party of Ontario is a duly registered
political party... there were 6 (not 4) candidates at the debate
who were not independents. Paul McKeever, Freedom Party
candidate."
Jct: How'd you feel about sitting up there for an hour and a half
with nothing to say because the moderators encouraged the
audience to select only four to answer the questions and exclude
the others. I won't take that insult which is why I don't mind
insulting right back those who think I should be quiet and
acquiesce.

KingofthePaupers
Sep 13, 2009 9:40 AM
   Issue is exclusion permitted "When he is understandably
ignored" is not the question. In 99% of debates I've attended
over 70 elections in 30 years, everyone gets to comment on all
questions. I objected to the controllers letting questioners
exclude all but four candidates from answering. Why not pick
three if the intent wasn't to keep getting the same Big Four. I'm
sure the other four who sat onstage with no chance to participate
have earned your respect. Despite your not getting to hear them,
I guess they don't deserve entry into the "STFAFP" movement that
you think I deserve. You didn't know what the issue was, you can
be forgiven for your ignorant conclusion.
--

St. Paul's electorate clearly miffed at HST
http://www.insidetoronto.com/news/local/article/81658--st-paul-s-electorate-clea\
rly-miffed-at-hst
LIAM LAHEY
Sep 11, 2009

LL: Shortly after each made their initial comments, the
proceedings turned whacky when Turmel, miffed at the attention
the four main candidates were receiving from the audience,

JCT: They were so much far more interesting than the stand-up
comedy routine..

LL: opted to leave the stage and wander about while bellowing his
disapproval at the overall process.

JCT: Yes, I may have stentorian voice.

LL: Things got heated, and at one point Turmel found himself
surrounded by residents that strongly urged him to either be
quiet or to go home. In the end, he tired himself out and
returned to his seat.

JCT: My protest did not tire out, I protested to the end. It's
just that everyone had started to cope with a legitimate
disruption to an unfair format.

LL: In the end, it was impossible to gauge who "won" the debate.
But Turmel certainly left a lasting impression.

JCT: I posted a comment:

Jct: It has been repeated that I left the stage of debate when I
was excluded from questions. I objected that the controllers were
making people select only four candidates and exclude the others.
Why not select 3 if they weren't trying to restrict it all to the
Big Four. In 99% of the meetings I've attended in 70 elections in
30 years, all candidates get to comment on all questions. I
objected to the moderators encouraging people to exclude all but
the Big Four. Too bad I'll be remembered for having wanted to
speak instead of being remembered for offering an interest-free
loan system to people who could really use one.

JCT: They didn't let it through.
---

John C. Turmel
http://tweetmeme.com/story/169199607/john-c-turmel
christindal
11th September 0:48
Wondering who John Turmel is? http://bit.ly/NhzkJ After tonight I
hope he's banned from further debates.
---

JCT: I've done videos on James Turner's case at
Part 1/2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QGNY3p4PV8
Part 2/2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLIh97Blz1o

After the Court of Appeal dismissed James Turner's Inmate
Appeal when he wasn't an inmate, James is seeking leave to appeal
at the top:

File Number: #_________
Appeal Court No: C49904
                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
           (ON APPEAL FROM THE ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL)
BETWEEN:
                        James Earl Turner
                                                        Applicant
                                              Appellant in appeal
                               and
                      Her Majesty The Queen
                                                       Respondent
                                             Respondent in appeal


            NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
                   JAMES EARL TURNER, APPLICANT
          (Pursuant to S.59(4) of the Supreme Court Act)

TAKE NOTICE that Applicant James Earl Turner Turmel hereby
applies for leave to appeal to the Court in forma pauperis from
the judgment of Ontario Court of Appeal Justices Stephen Goudge,
Robert Armstrong, and Robert Blair dismissing the Application
for Leave to Appeal and Inmate Appeal due to the Inmate not
appearing for the hearing.

THE GROUNDS ARE that since the Appellant was not an inmate,

a) the Registrar of the Ontario Court of Appeal erred in
scheduling the appeal without having first verified that Rule
18(3) requiring transcripts, Rule 16(1) requiring facta, Rule
18(2) requiring Certificates of Perfection and Rule 18(1)
requiring proofs of service for non-inmate appeals had been
complied with;

b) the Court of Appeal erred in using Inmate Appeal Rules;

c) the Inmate Appeal Court erred in dismissing the Inmate's
Application for Leave to Appeal when no Inmate Application for
Leave to Appeal had been filed by the non-inmate Appellant;

d) the Inmate Appeal Court erred in dismissing an Inmate Appeal
as abandoned because the guards couldn't find the prisoner.
Dated at Ottawa on Aug 10 2009.
_______________________
For the Applicant:
James E. Turner
C-2501 Prince of Wales
Ottawa, ON, K2C 3H1
Tel/fax: 613-212-3344/221-9042
Email: jamesturner1326@...

                      APPELLANT'S MEMORANDUM
                   JAMES EARL TURNER, APPLICANT
          (Pursuant to S.59(4) of the Supreme Court Act)


PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On Nov 26 2008, Applicant's application for an Order of
Prohibition was dismissed by Ontario Superior Court Justice
Lalonde.

2. On Dec 3, transcripts were ordered in an appeal and received
by the Court Registry on March 30 2009.

3. Ontario Court of Appeal Registrar Huguette Thompson informed
Appellant the transcript prepared for the appeal by the Ottawa
Court Reporter had been improperly prepared. Unfortunately,
while upgrading the transcript, the Court Reporter died and
after numerous delays, the transcript was finally filed on Aug 7
2009.
(Ex. A of the Affidavit of James Turner)

4. On June 1 2009, Appellant received the Appeal Books from the
Crown with a notice that the appeal had somehow been scheduled
for hearing on June 16 2009 without any of the required
documentation. No transcripts, no factums, no Certificate of
Perfection.

5. Crown Maureen McGuire explained in her June 5 2009 email:
MM: Thank you for forwarding a copy of Mr. Turner's email to our
office. The Crown is opposed to the adjournment requested by Mr.
Turner. The Appeal Book is complete and contains all the
material required for the hearing of this appeal.

6. The Registrar failed to verify that the appeal had been
perfected and took the Crown's word that it contained all the
material required for the hearing of this appeal when it omitted
the required factum of argument from each party.

7. MM: I have confirmed with Crown counsel on the application
below that there was no evidence heard in the court below, and
therefore the transcript Mr. Turner is waiting for would simply
be submissions. Submissions are not normally part of the
required transcripts for an appeal, unless otherwise ordered by
the court.

8. Transcripts are required for an appeal, unless otherwise
ordered by the court. Not by the Crown Attorney.

9. MM: Mr. Turner filed his notice of appeal more than four
months ago...

10. Any delay was due to the death of the court reporter, not
due to the Appellant.

11. MM: Mr. Turner also asked that his appeal be moved to
Toronto... While we have no preference as to whether this appeal
is heard in Toronto or in Kingston, I understand that the
Toronto list this month is very lengthy and that this matter can
more conveniently be heard in Kingston.

12. Skipping the factums was just a matter of convenience but it
is wrong to mis-label the Appellant as an inmate in an effort to
evade compliance with the normal Rules of Procedure.

13. MM: It is of some importance that this appeal not be
delayed.

14. It was of more importance that all the required
documentation should be filed.

15. Though the appeal had been listed for hearing in the
Kingston Correctional Services building, there was no suspicion
that Appellant was being called before the Inmate Appeals Court.
Appellant had requested being heard at Osgoode Hall in Toronto
like all other normal non-inmate appeals despite the Crown's
claims to convenience.

16. Rule 16(1) "EXCEPT IN AN INMATE APPEAL, all parties to an
appeal shall deliver a factum." There are no exceptions for
skipping the filing of factums in a non-inmate appeal so
Appellant asked the Registry if this R. v. Turner appeal was the
first to go to hearing without any factums in the record?

17. Rule 18(1) "EXCEPT IN AN INMATE APPEAL, the appellant shall
serve on every other party to the appeal one copy of the appeal
book, one copy of the transcript and one copy of the appellant's
factum and immediately thereafter shall file with the Registrar
proof of service of the appeal book, the transcript and the
factum..." There are no exceptions for skipping the filing of
the transcripts, factums, proofs of service in a non-inmate
appeal either.

18. Rule 18(2) The appellant shall file with the Registrar two
copies of a certificate of perfection stating..." It doesn't
even say "except in inmate appeals," so everyone's got to file a
Certificate of Perfection. Is this the first appeal ever
scheduled without a Certificate of Perfection or has the Crown
been skipping them for inmate appeals already?

19. Rule 18(3) "The appellant shall perfect the appeal within 90
days after the transcript has been delivered to the Court of
Appeal." Transcripts were mailed to the Court of Appeal on Aug 7
2009 leaving Appellant until Nov to perfect the appeal.

20. Appellant complained repeatedly to the Registrar about the
failure to comply with the normal rules of procedure for non-
inmate appeals and was told that the hearing of his appeal for
June 16 2009 before Inmate Appeals Court was now a fait
accomplit which could only be changed by Order of one of the
judges.

21. Appellant brought these irregularities to the attention of
Justice MacPherson and asked for an Order quashing the date of
the hearing until of the appeal has been perfected. Justice
MacPherson dismissed the motion to quash the hearing until the
appeal had been perfected saying Appellant would be told at his
appeal why they were not proceeding by the normal rules.

22. Justice MacPherson also approved the unobtrusive way of
taping the proceedings for Appellant's own notes with a small
tape recorder.

23. Before the hearing of the appeal, a Court of Appeal judge
died and the appeal was delayed.

24. Appellant continued to try to find out how the Crown was
able to schedule the hearing of the incomplete appeal without
complying with Rule 18(3) requiring transcripts, Rule 16(1)
requiring facta, Rule 18(2) requiring Certificates of Perfection
and Rule 18(1) requiring proofs of service?

25. Appellant again received notice from the Crown that the
appeal was once again scheduled for hearing in Kingston on Aug
18 2009 upon the non-perfected record complained of. Again, no
mention that Appellant was being called before an Inmate Appeals
Court.

26. Finally, on Thurs Aug 12 2009, Sandra Theroulde Deputy
Registrar and Manager of Court Administration emailled:
ST: this appeal was originally scheduled to be heard on June 16,
2009 on the basis of the crown's representation that it was
ready to be argued."

27. No transcripts, no factums, no certificates of completion
but the Crown says it's ready and the Registrar doesn't check?
It is the Appellant who files the Certificate of Perfection, not
the Respondent, wouldn't the Registrar know that? The
Respondent's assertion is not a valid substitute for an
Appellant's Certificate of Perfection.

28. ST: You applied for an adjournment on the basis that the
matter was not yet ready to proceed.

29. Despite no transcripts, no factums, no certificates of
completion, it was still going to take more convincing to show
that the matter was not yet ready to proceed.

30. ST: Your request was dealt with by Justice MacPherson on
June 9, 2009. He refused to grant an adjournment but indicated
that you could renew your request before the panel scheduled to
hear the appeal.

31. Lack of transcripts, factums, certificates of completion
couldn't convince Justice MacPherson that the matter was not yet
ready to proceed. Of course, sitting on Inmate Appeals Court,
judges don't expect transcripts or facta in aid of argument.

32. ST: Unfortunately, for reasons beyond our control the
appeals scheduled for hearing on June 16, 2009 had to be
adjourned. They have been re-scheduled for hearing at the next
sitting of appeals in Kingston which occurs on August 18, 2009.
You are still entitled to request an adjournment although you
should be prepared to argue your appeal if the adjournment is
refused.

33. Appellant was expected to prepare to argue his Inmate Appeal
without any documentation if the other two judges on the Inmate
Appeals Panel agreed with Judge MacPherson that no documentation
is the norm in Inmate Appeals, and for non-inmates too.

34. Believing the Registrar's failure to explain how the Crown
has been able to circumvent the rules meant the Registrar had
probably helped in the circumvention of the rules, Appellant
emailed the Registrar demanding a faxed copy of the Certificate
of Perfection or an Order dispensing with the rules of procedure
if they wanted him to attend the hearing of the non-perfected
appeal before the Kingston Inmate Appeals Court.

35. With no Certificate of Perfection forthcoming, Appellant did
not attend the Inmate Appeals Court.

36. On Aug 18 2009, Ontario Court of Appeal Justices Stephen
Goudge, Robert Armstrong, and Robert Blair ruled:
"THIS APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL and the APPEAL by way of
inmate appeal by the above-named against the order of the
Honorable Justice Lalonde was considered on this day, at
Kingston, Ontario.
ON READING the material filed, on hearing the submissions of
counsel for the Crown, the appellant not appearing although the
case was duly called,
THIS COURT ORDERS that the appeal is dismissed as abandoned."

PART II - POINTS OF OBJECTION:

37. A) the Registrar of the Ontario Court of Appeal erred in
scheduling the appeal without having first verified that Rule
18(3) requiring transcripts, Rule 16(1) requiring facta, Rule
18(2) requiring Certificates of Perfection and Rule 18(1)
requiring proofs of service for non-inmate appeals had been
complied with;

38. B) the Court of Appeal erred in using Inmate Appeal Rules;

39. C) the Inmate Appeal Court erred in dismissing the Inmate's
Application for Leave to Appeal when no Inmate Application for
Leave to Appeal had been filed by the non-inmate Appellant;

40. D) the Inmate Appeal Court erred in dismissing an Inmate
Appeal as abandoned because the guards couldn't find the
prisoner.

PART III - STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT

41. A) The Crown side-stepped the Rules of Procedure by mis-
labeling the Appellant an inmate so as to take advantage of
exemptions to the normal rules that Appellant was due, facta of
arguments from both parties in the record.

42. The Registrar of the Ontario Court of Appeal was derelict in
accepting a representation of the Crown that the appeal was
ready rather than checking the files to verify if the appeal had
been perfected. It is the Appellant who files the Certificate of
Perfection before scheduling an appeal, not the Respondent who
makes an assertion.

43. Since Appellant was not an inmate no matter how convenient
the Crown thought treating him as such was, the Registry still
could not schedule the appeal without having first verified that
Rule 18(3) requiring transcripts, Rule 16(1) requiring facta,
Rule 18(2) requiring Certificates of Perfection and Rule 18(1)
requiring proofs of service for non-inmate appeals had been
complied with. Appellant can see that once the case had been
slipped into the Inmate Appeals stream, other than Appellant
emailing a tirade about it to the Registrar, no inmate appeal
clerk one would notice a lack of facta and transcripts that are
not required in non-inmate appeals.

44. B) The Court erred in proceeding by way of Inmate Appeal
Rules because the Appellant was not an inmate. The Crown makes
it sound like a matter of convenience going by way of Inmate
Appeals Court in Kingston rather the overly-booked Toronto venue
which is belied by their taking advantage of the exemption to
filing documentation in inmate appeals. They say they were
prepared to argue the appeal in Kingston or Toronto but did not
have the documentation needed for Toronto.

45. C) The Inmate Appeal Court erred in dismissing the Inmate's
Application for Leave to Appeal when no Inmate Application for
Leave to Appeal had been filed by the non-inmate Appellant for
the Inmate Appeals Court to dismiss.

46. D) The Inmate Appeal Court erred in dismissing an Inmate
Appeal as abandoned because the Court should have realized that
this could not have been an inmate appeal when the guards
couldn't find the prisoner.

PART V - ORDER SOUGHT

Applicant seeks an order granting leave to appeal the judgment
of Ontario Court of Appeal Justices Stephen Goudge, Robert
Armstrong, and Robert Blair which dismissed the Appellant's
Appeal against the Nov 26 2008 decision of Justice Lalonde.

PART VI - TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
None

PART VII - REGULATIONS BEING RELIED ON
Criminal Appeal rules

FACTUMS
Heading of factum
16. (1) Except in an inmate appeal, all parties to an appeal and
persons who have been granted the right to be heard shall
deliver a factum, to be entitled and described on its cover as
"Appellant's Factum", "Respondent's Factum" or as the case may
be.

PERFECTING THE APPEAL
Service and filing
18. (1) Except in an inmate appeal, the appellant shall serve on
every other party to the appeal and any person entitled by
statute or an order of the court to be heard upon the appeal,
one copy of the appeal book, one copy of the transcript and one
copy of the appellant's factum and immediately thereafter shall
file with the Registrar proof of service of the appeal book, the
transcript and the factum and,
(a) in appeals directed to be heard by five judges, five copies
of the appeal book and six copies of the appellant's factum; and
(b) in all other appeals, three copies of the appeal book and
four copies of the appellant's factum.

Certificate of perfection
(2) The appellant shall file with the Registrar two copies of a
certificate of perfection stating,
(a) that the appeal book, transcript and appellant's factum have
been served and filed;
(b) that the transcript is complete;
(c) the estimated total length of time for oral argument; and
(d) the name, address and telephone number of the solicitor for
each party to the appeal, unless the respondent is the Attorney
General, and of any person entitled by statute or an order to be
heard on the appeal, or where a party or person acts in person,
his or her name, address for service and telephone number.

Time for perfection
(3) Except in an appeal from the decision of a judge of the
Ontario Court (General Division) not sitting as a trial judge
where no transcript is required other than that filed in the
Ontario Court (General Division) and an appeal from sentence
only, the appellant shall perfect the appeal by complying with
subrules (1) and (2) within ninety days after the transcript has
been delivered to the Court of Appeal or such longer period as
is permitted by a judge or the Registrar.

Dated at Ottawa on Aug 10 2009.
For the Applicant:
James E. Turner
C-2501 Prince of Wales
Ottawa, ON, K2C 3H1
Tel/fax: 613-212-3344/221-9042
Email: jamesturner1326@...

JCT: As I had emailed everyone, including my opponents, in my
last post titled:  Crooked debate moderators in St. Paul's
byelection as usual

>I can tell you that in the past, when I have been excluded from
a question, I leave the stage and go pass out my literature until
I'm invited back on stage to respond. I won't sit there like a
lump on a log while the same four candidates keep getting asked
all the questions."

JCT: So they knew what was going to be happening if they opened
up the option of excluding candidates for their questioners,
didn't they?

Police called to candidates' debate
Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/police-called-to-candidates-debate/\
article1283295/

Sep. 11, 2009 03:14AM EDT
JOE FRIESEN

A candidates' debate in the St. Paul's by-election briefly
descended into farce last night as police were called to rein in
an independent candidate who refused to sit quietly while
questioners ignored him.

John Turmel, who styles himself Turmel the engineer, one of five
fringe or independent candidates contesting the race in St.
Paul's, was upset at not being allowed to answer questions being
directed to the four major party candidates.

He was asked several times to be quiet or leave, but refused,
continuing to walk around the church hall where the debate was
being held. An hour into the debate, a recess was called and a
group of audience members confronted Mr. Turmel.

"You want to cheat me quietly, I won't be quiet," Mr. Turmel
cried as he was surrounded. "Call the police. Assault! You can't
touch me, you can't touch me."

The police were called, according to the event's moderator, but
did not arrive for 45 minutes. They decided not to intervene at
that point. The debate was eventually resumed, but Mr. Turmel
continued to wander the aisles, objecting loudly each time a
question was asked to the major candidates. When Liberal
candidate Eric Hoskins was posed yet another question, Mr. Turmel
said, "Oh, Eric again - give us a show, Eric the one man band."

The drama overshadowed an otherwise tepid debate at the First
Unitarian congregation on St. Clair Avenue in which most
candidates turned their attention to criticizing the Liberal
government of Dalton McGuinty.
--

High drama hijacks debate
By-election contest features shouting, shoving and police
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/694129

Sep 11, 2009 04:30 AM
Rob Ferguson Queen's Park Bureau

Chaos erupted last night at a debate by nine candidates hoping to
become the new MPP for St. Paul's in next Thursday's by-election
when an independent candidate rebelled after being denied the
chance to answer questions from the audience.

The debate was briefly adjourned and interrupted several times as
fringe candidate John Turmel got off the stage and rambled around
a church auditorium, complaining loudly and repeatedly that he
was being bypassed with questions aimed at candidates from
mainstream parties.

"Why should I sit like a lump on a log?" Turmel beefed aloud to
the crowd after he abandoned the stage in frustration. "This is
democracy in Canada?"

He was threatened with ejection several times by the moderator of
the debate, organized by the local Town Crier newspaper.

Police were also called and Turmel later returned to the stage
and settled down, but only after a shoving match had ensued and
nearby audience members feared it might come to blows.

JCT: Not from me, I wasn't the one upset.

One supporter of Progressive Conservative candidate Sue-Ann Levy
held back an angry audience member who made a move toward Turmel,
an engineer by training who is known in political circles for
running in virtually every election he can.

JCT: I wasn't one of those in a rage.

As the debate began, Turmel told an overflow crowd of about 300
at a church hall in the mid-town Toronto riding that he was not
so much concerned about taxes the provincial government collects
but how "tax money is wasted."
--

St. Paul's foes show little harmony
Toronto Sun
http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2009/09/11/10832721-sun.html

By ANTONELLA ARTUSO, QUEEN'S PARK BUREAU CHIEF
11th September 2009, 2:47am

Countering claims by his opponents that the harmonized sales tax
is a cash grab, St. Paul's Liberal byelection candidate Dr. Eric
Hoskins says the McGuinty plan will actually cost the government
money. "It's not revenue neutral. In fact, it's going to cost us
$2 billion over the next three years," Hoskins said. "It's the
right thing to do at this time, the right thing for business ...
It's the right thing for families as well." Hoskins, the
perceived frontrunner in the race, was the target of most of his
opponents, who took aim at the 13% HST throughout an all-
candidates meeting held last night at a St. Clair Ave. W. church.

The riding of St. Paul's, which encompasses the mid-town Toronto
area, became vacant with the resignation in June of former
Liberal MPP Michael Bryant.

PC candidate Sue-Ann Levy called the HST a massive tax hike,
which will devastate St. Paul's residents and businesses, driving
up rent, utilities and even cups of coffee. Levy, who is on leave
from her position as City Hall columnist for the Toronto Sun,
said she has always been an advocate for lower taxes and
responsible government. "When this byelection was called, I
decided I had sat on the sidelines long enough and wanted to make
a difference in my community," she said.

NDP candidate Julian Heller suggested voters shouldn't pass up an
opportunity to pass judgment on the Liberal government's HST and
its eHealth and Ontario Lottery Corp. spending scandals. "Each
one of you deserves better than you've been receiving," Heller
told the crowd of about 300 people.

In a bizarre twist, the meeting was halted briefly while one
candidate -- apparently angry he wasn't allowed to answer all the
questions -- began pacing the room and shouting. "Why should I
sit like a lump on a log when I get excluded," independent John
Turmel said.
--

JCT: Terry Parker caught an hour and a half on video and I don't
know where to post it since Google shut down. Maybe the high-
lights at youtube, especially when I was surrounded by the angry
mob.

When they started grabbing me to throw me out, I wasn't about to
fight back. They were ready to carry me out. I had to shout "Call
the cops, assault, call the cops. Trespass is not an indictable
offence, you can't touch me, call a cop. You need a badge." They
did seem to wither away.

Still, it's just like the time Tory Phearful Phil McColeman ran
out of a debate to call the cops on my loud-mouth and by the time
they got there, everything had calmed down and the debate was
back to normal.

This fluked because one man had the audacity to ask if he could
have answers from all the candidates at one point which got me
back on the stage in a quiet mood. No matter that there were a
lot of angries, there were still people taking my flyer.

Someday, I'll get the time to edit the video of the "bizarre"
"chaos" "farce" debate down to bite-sized youtube portions.

JCT: I'm running as an independent candidate in the St. Paul's
Ontario provincial byelection in Toronto and received this
invitation from the Rogers Cable Network:

Goldhawk Live
Date: Thursday, September 3, 2009 4:01 PM
From: "Kelly Todd" <Kelly.Todd@...>
To: johnturmel@...
Hello,

On Monday, September 14th Goldhawk Live will be taping an all-
candidates debate for the St. Paul's riding.
The taping will take place from 4:00-5:00 pm at the Rogers TV
studio located at 855 York Mills Rd.
Candidates representing the PC, Liberal, NDP and Green Party will
be involved in the formal debate.

All other candidates will be featured in the last portion of our
program and will be given the opportunity to voice their "pitch"
for a duration of approximately one minute.

Candidates who are interested in participating in Goldhawk Live
must confirm before Monday, September 7th.
Details regarding directions and parking will be sent once the
candidate is confirmed.  Thank you in advance,  Kelly
Kelly Todd Producer, Goldhawk Live
Rogers TV - Toronto  416.442.2846
kelly.todd@...  Local matters. Only on RogersTV.

JCT: This is the typical cheating going on. Build up the prestige
of the favored candidates while denigrating the disfavored
candidates as unworthy of equal attention. Same four all the
time, nothing much new ever.
Anyway, since I'm in the Supreme Court right now challenging the
CRTC decision the media don't have to include all candidates in
debates anymore. The R. v. CBC Vezina decision where the Ontario
Court of Appeal ruled debates didn't have to include everyone.

So they don't have to even give me my minute anymore. There's
nothing I can do while the court has ruled that excluding
candidates is still democratic other than my current challenge in
the Supreme Court. But what are the odds the Supreme Court will
judge the exclusion of candidates from debates a serious issue
worthy of their consideration. Probably not much.

Right after Big Brother announced they were fixing the game for
the televised debate, I get another fixed game announcement:

From: Brian Baker <bbaker@...>
Subject: Format for the Town Crier Debate, Sept. 10
To: "Brian Baker" <bbaker@...>
Cc: gcameron@..., <emcmillan@...>
Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2009, 5:15 PM

Dear attendees of the candidates debate,
Attached is the format for the Sept. 10 debate at First
Unitarian Congregation of Toronto, 175 St. Clair Ave. West.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact
myself or managing editor Gordon Cameron. Best,
Brian Baker -- News Editor / Reporter
Town Crier Newspapers
E: bbaker@... W: http://www.mytowncrier.ca

JCT: The format was equitable until they got to the question
period where voters would be forced to select 4 candidates to
respond to the questions. Why not five? Could it be because there
are the Big Four and the rest of us? I objected and cced email
copies to the other candidates:

Turmel: Re: Format for the Town Crier Debate,
Date: Sept. 10 Tuesday, September 8, 2009 11:28 PM
From: "John Turmel" <johnturmel@...>
"Brian Baker" <bbaker@...>
Cc: gcameron@..., emcmillan@...,
turmel@yahoogroups.com, danish@...,
votechris@..., mariusfrederick@..., eric@...,
sue@..., pm@...---

Jct: I think limiting the questions to only the usual Big Four is
wrong. All candidates should be treated the same and the audience
should not be encouraged to treat us differently.
---

JCT: One other candidate responded:

From: Marius Frederick <mariusfrederick@...>
Subject: Re: Turmel: Re: Format for the Town Crier Debate,
To: "John Turmel" <johnturmel@...>
Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2009, 4:13 AM

You are correct, yesterday I had to talk to 680 News about only
mentioning the 4 main stream parties.
---

Re: Turmel: Re: Format for the Town Crier Debate,
Date: Sept. 10 Wednesday, September 9, 2009 8:42 AM
From: "John Turmel" <johnturmel@...>View contact details
To: "Marius Frederick" <mariusfrederick@...>

Jct: Get used to not being mentioned. That you can't correct.
But don't get used to being excluded. The organizers have created
an exclusion mechanism for the audience to use since they can't
restrict all questions to the four favored parties themselves.
When I'm excluded from a question, I leave the stage and pass out
my flyers, quite a disruption, until I'm invited to participate
back on stage with the others.
And of course, the pressure has to be put on the Big Four. If
they won't participate in a crooked format, the format changes.
If they will, Big Brother wins. It's the Big Four Favovites who
are the bad guys for taking the unfair edge, not only the crooked
referee for giving it to them.
Start pressuring the Big Four to get us all on the Rogers debate.
I've been on with 10, we can be on with 11.
---

Re: Turmel: Re: Format for the Town Crier Debate,
Date: Sept. 10 Thursday, September 10, 2009 12:26 AM
To: "John Turmel" <johnturmel@...>
From: "Brian Baker" <bbaker@...>Cc:

We've limited it to any four candidates at a time for the
sake of expediency with the allotted time we have for the
debate. I apologize if it was not made clear.
Voters can direct their questions to any four candidates.
Not just the Liberal, PC, NDP or Green camps. Best,
---

JCT: "Best," after giving me the shiv. I wrote back:

From: "John Turmel" <johnturmel@...>
To: "Brian Baker" <bbaker@...>Cc:
danish@..., emcmillan@...,
eric@..., gcameron@...,
mariusfrederick@..., pm@..., sue@...,
votechris@..., turmel@yahoogroups.com, medpot-
discuss@yahoogroups.com---

Jct: It was made very clear.
To include one of the small-party candidates forces the voter to
exclude one of the big-party candidates.
Voters should not be put in the position of having to prejudice
the debate. 99% of other debates I've attended permit all
candidates the same treatment, responding to all questions
together, I see no reason and no expedient worth turning it into
an exercise in failed-democracy.
I can tell you that in the past, when I have been excluded from a
question, I leave the stage and go pass out my literature until
I'm invited back on stage to respond. I won't sit there like a
lump on a log while the same four candidates keep getting asked
all the questions.
And why not five candidates?
I can also tell you that in the past, when all the candidates
agree that all the candidates should be treated the same, we are.
So I expect all my opponents to endorse letting all candidates
answer all questions. We'll take a straw poll tomorrow night.
---

JCT: So, tomorrow night, we find out if the favored candidates
are going to stand up to the moderator for the disfavored
candidates equal participation in the questions in anticipation
of whether they favored candidates will stand up to Rogers for
the disfavored candidates in the equal participation of the whole
telecast.

We can't expect the CRTC or the courts to tame Big Brother, we
can only hope our opponents have the sportsmanship to not accept
such an unfair court-approved flaw in the Canadian democratic
process. When the favored candidates refuse to accept the unfair
advantage, there's nothing for Big Brother to do but open the
show.

Hope the cops don't have to be called.
At least I'm not on probation any more if they do!
Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

JCT: With interest piqued by Michael Moore's Banking Systems
Engineering Thesis?
my ally Marc Gauvin wrote:

--- In letssc@yahoogroups.com, Marc Gauvin <gauvin@...> wrote:
> Take a look at http://www.bibocurrency.org

Jct: Is http://bibocurrency.org your thesis?

> > How will we grade Michael Moore's Banking Systems Engineering
> > Thesis?

Jct: How will we grade Marc Gauvin's thesis?

Jct: Marc wrote back:

It is by myself and Sergio Dominguez PhD in Engineering Professor of
Control Systems engineering.

We applied Linear Time Invariant (LTI) stability analysis to standard
loan contracts. The criteria for stability in LTI systems is that
bounded inputs must yield a bounded outputs, in this regard these
"common loan practices" as defined in our paper and real life we call
them are on the most part simple interest with the condition that for
any outstanding principal debt there always exists a minimum
outstanding interest due.

So and to give the benefit of the doubt to the system we assumed the
best possible case for stability and based our analysis on individual
debt contracts being simple interest i.e. not producing exponential
outputs.  In any case, the formal analysis shows that in both simple
and compound such contracts are in and of themselves unstable.

Once having established that these simple interest "common lending
practices" are unstable in and of themselves, we proceeded to show via
a walkthrough that the process of pledging wealth as collateral for
the issuance of new money in the form of current account entries in
the amount of principal loans everything is BIBO except in the case
where the total debt grows as a function of time and without resulting
in a corresponding increase in principal, the system as a whole
produces its only unbounded output always beyond any principal sum
available at any point in time (remember, the system demands interest
above and beyond all outstanding principal at all points in time).
This leads to a situation where  any cycle necessarily will produce a
minimum excess of debt composed of both principal and interest! That
is it is never just principal or just interest.  When this occurs the
system fails or it must refinance that residual debt with or without
new added collateral.  It is when the latter occurs that the overall
system begins producing an exponential output, because ti is both
principal + interest being refinanced so that compounding takes place.
Now at the end of a non BIBO debt cycle there are two possibilities:

1) If new lien free collateral is brought to the system then new money
in the form of new loans can be created and the past excess interest +
principal debt can be satisfied.
2) If no new lien free collateral is forthcoming then the old
collateral must be used to back subsequent refinancing cycles each
time at a higher cumulative cost thus producing inflation.

But as stated above, the output becomes exponential and of course BIBO
remains untrue i.e the system is unstable.  It is however interesting
to note that the inflation can be staved off if new collateral is
continuously added to the system (whether legitimately created or
robbed from other territories).

You will notice that your work is referenced as the conclusions are
similar if not identical, the differences are:

a) We do not immediately assume an exponential model which is
necessary when people notice that in practice loan agreements are not
exponential.
b) We explain in more detail the constant, irrational abuse imposed by
the banking system by demanding that wealth production keep up with
the exponentially growing debt seed planted on the outset, and absurd
imposition as it implicitly makes the assumption that somehow real
production can and needs to mirror an arbitrary exponential.  This
does however serve to show how the system can be used as a wealth
accumulator like a vacuum.
c) We explain inflation as a function of refinancing while your work
does as a function of foreclosure.   The reason for this is that
refinancing particularly at the onset of the life cycle of a currency
occurs as there tends to be more new wealth and initial debt seeds are
relatively small.

In any event, this and more work like it needs to be produced if for
no other reason to reconfirm these important results.  You will enjoy
the experimental design provided in the annex of our analysis to test
our hypothesis:

Hypothesis
No matter the nature of wealth traded in an economy or the relative
success or
failure of economic activity or the nature or behaviour of the
participants,
“Common Lending Practices” as described in the formal stability
analysis will
always exhibit unbounded outputs in the form of residual interest
bearing debt
beyond the bounded value attributed to discreet and finite wealth and
beyond
the sum of money created in the form of the principal sum of loans.

This is important because the way science is being misused today is
precisely in applying scientific tactics outside of the scientific
method i.e. not providing experiments that can be independently
reproduced to uphold the hypotheses being pushed.  This way science
has become the new religion. In short no matter what you throw at us
if you cannot produce an experiment that can be reproduced by anyone
independently it ain't science period.  To catch a better and more
entertaining take on this a direct you to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOtiRB3uyk

Anyway, you will see that we have also published a first attempt to
providing a common technical spec for a stable (bibo) currency see:
http://bibocurrency.org/BIBO%20currency%20specification%20v4.5.pdf.
As I have suggested many times once there is a formal stable currency
spec then all other specs whether implicit or explicit can be
compared, more importantly the existing de facto spec  that is for all
intents and purposes implicit needs to be explicit for all to see if
it is to prove any of its claimed virtues in open fora.  Also, by
having a common technical spec then all otherwise independent
currencies  that share that common spec instantly are interoperable.
For those who are interested to pursuing this endeavour see icseg.org
(International Currency System Engineering Group) follow the
instructions at the home page.

Finally, for those less inclined to read the formal analysis we have
another simpler more colloquial primer (http://bibocurrency.org/
stability%20video%20v%204.2.8.pdf)  explains in detail everything most
anyone needs to know to fully be able to assess when a currency system
is stable and when it is not and why.  It really isn't rocket science
but it still needs to be explained step by step and in the right
order.
Best, Marc

JCT: If it helps make poker chips easier to understand for the average
unenlightened reader...

JCT: From: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWEdeeHisgU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bBIK4tAnQc is my Jan 26 2009
video "Michael Moore short on what to do" on his great ideas
about how to survive if we only had enough money.

One week later, Michael Moore wrote:

Will You Help Me With My Next Film? a request from Michael Moore
Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 6:00 AM
From: "Michael Moore" <maillist@...>
To: johnturmel@...

Friends,
I am in the middle of shooting my next movie and I am looking for
a few brave people who work on Wall Street or in the financial
industry to come forward and share with me what they know. Based
on those who have already contacted me, I believe there are a
number of you who know "the real deal" about the abuses that have
been happening. You have information that the American people
need to hear. I am humbly asking you for a moment of courage, to
be a hero and help me expose the biggest swindle in American
history.

All correspondence with me will be kept confidential. Your
identity will be protected and you will decide to what extent you
wish to participate in telling the greatest crime story ever
told.

The important thing here is for you to step up as an American and
do your duty of shedding some light on this financial collapse. A
few good people have already come forward, which leads me to
believe there are many more of you out there who know what's
going on. Here's your chance to let your fellow citizens in on
the truth.

If you have any info that would help, please contact me at my
private email address: bailout@....

For the rest of you on my email list who don't work in the
financial industry, you're probably wondering, "What the heck is
this all about? I thought he said he was making a romantic
comedy!"

Well, I just can't say much right now. I'm sure you can
understand why. One thing I can tell you is that you're gonna
like this movie when I'm done with it. Oh, yeah...

So, again, if you work for a bank, a brokerage firm or an
insurance company -- or if you have seen things or heard things
that you believe the American people have a right to know --
please contact me at bailout@....
Thank you in advance for your help!
Yours, Michael Moore bailout@... MichaelMoore.com
---

JCT: Well, he should at least have a copy of the banking system
blueprint he's going to be analyzing so I responded:

Jct: http://youtube.com/watch?v=6bBIK4tAnQc is a video I did on
Michael Moore's great ideas on what to do if we only had enough
money.
But before embarking on an analysis of the most mysterious
mechanism ever invented, see my banking systems engineering
analyses at See  at http://youtube.com/kingofthepaupers with an
index of articles at http://johnturmel.com/kotp.htm

John C. "The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel, King of the
Paupers, Great Canadian Gambler, Author of the UNILETS interest-
free time-based currency United Nations C6 recommendation to
Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
---

JCT: Let's hope it got his attention because today I hear he's
presenting his video-thesis on banking systems engineering to the
world:

This Is It! World Premiere of 'Capitalism: A Love Story' Tonight
Saturday, September 5, 2009 10:25 PM
From: "Michael Moore" <maillist@...>
To: johnturmel@...

MM: Friends,  Well, this is it!
Tonight, at the Venice Film Festival, I will premiere my new
movie, "Capitalism: A Love Story." After 16 months of production,
I am proud to present this work of mine to you. It is unlike
anything you'll see on the silver screen this year.

JCT: Yes, explaining the blueprint of the banking system
engineering is unlike what they've been inculcated into believing
all their lives.

MM: Twenty years ago this week I premiered my first film, "Roger
& Me." Tonight, my new film will premiere at the oldest film
festival in the world, the Venice Film Festival in Venice, Italy.
It is an incredible honor they've bestowed on us, and we feel
very privileged to be able to present "Capitalism: A Love Story"
tonight in Venice.

The director of the festival said that our movie was "incredibly
symphonic" and that he was moved by its epic nature. Jeez, these
Italians! Everything's an opera to them!

But seriously, I do believe we've made something that will knock
your socks off. I showed it to a friend of mine last week and he
said, "It's your most dangerous film yet." (But I assure you,
you'll be completely safe watching it in your local theater.)

JCT: Sure, if it shows a threatening future the banksters may
resist, yes. But if it shows the non-threatening future (like
using cell-phone minutes in Africa hasn't turned the former debt
slaves onto their oppressors), the banksters may not resist.
Amnesty, Security, Anonymity for all, even banksters too. ASA,
the Global Aspirin for the debt slavery disease.

MM: I've kept a pretty tight lid on what we've been up to while
making this movie and you're about to see exactly what that
means.

JCT: Sure, if it explains the liberation from debts that is now
going on all around the world, because every transaction done
with LETS currency, Timedollars, Phoneminutes, every barter deal
between nations, is one less interest payment to the orthodox
currency loansharks. But it's a quiet take down, no revenge
necessary when everyone's busy getting on with getting rich while
the filthy rich of today's chips finish out the game with their
own broken machine. Why represent our wealth with their chips for
a fee when we can represent our wealth with our chips for free?

MM: It isn't easy, in the age of YouTube and the internet, to
keep something like this under wraps, but we've pulled it off and
I can't wait to show you this latest effort of mine.

JCT: If he saw "Money as Debt," then he saw the first part of the
derivation for Turmel's Miracle Equation when they explained that
everyone who borrowed the Principal owed both the Principal +
Interest so that P/(P+I) survive and the ratio who don't survive,
the Money as Debt video did not work out. If P/(P+I) survive, the
remainder I/(P+I) cannot. That ratio who get knocked out of the
game is Turmel's Miracle Equation because it predicts the size of
Shift B inflation, the ratio of collateral confiscated.

If he saw "Zeitgeist" and "Zeitgeist Addendum," he'll have noted
the explanation of the same problem due to the interest demand
for the repayment of more than was issued, but also shows how an
interest-free world with enough money would then work.

So if Michael Moore expects to put together something better than
both of these Grade-A analyses in banking systems engineering, it
can only be by going beyond them to complete the derivation of
the Miracle Equation which shows that Shift B inflation and
unemployment = I/(P+I) = 0 when I=0. "Let the exacting of usury
stop" Nehemiah 5:10 (now deleted from some newer Bibles.)

Here's Michael Moore's chance to strike a blow at the Global Debt
Slavery System. Will he strike at the heart and explain how
restricting the banks' computer programs to a pure service charge
and abolishing the interest charge upgrades it to ideal? Will he
mention the Millennium Declaration UNILETS time-based currency
Resolution? That would have global impact, wouldn't it!

"Oh, by the way, there's this UN Millennium Resolution that
everyone should get interest-free loans they can pay back in cash
or in time. And use your Facebook, or Twitter, or Google, or
Yahoo or Myspace account to keep track of your public IOUs."
Yeah, that would have global impact.

"They're paying with mobile-phone minutes over in Africa and
Arabia, why don't we pay with mobile-phone minutes here and
everywhere too?
Yeah, that would have global impact.

He might even throw in "Turmel's already used his online account
to pay for 39/40 nights in Europe with a night back in Canada
worth 5 Hours work."
Yeah, that would have global impact.

But if he presents these debt liberations as some kind of threat
to the rich and powerful, and ignore the quiet takedown going on
around the world, it would be a disservice. As the financial
markets makes news shrieking their debt death throes while real
world barter markets quietly take over, we expect suits
protesting in the streets while farmers are doing fine.

When I first announced I was running for Parliament to legalize
gambling, it took me 40 days of thought without any Bible input
yet before I asked myself "What would an interest-free world look
like?" Of course, I had an advantage having been an interest
banker at my own casino games so I soon realize that the answer
is "Heaven." We now get to judge Michael Moore's thesis on what's
wrong and what we have to do.

MM: So wish us well tonight. We'll be home soon to open the movie
all across the country (September 23rd in New York and L.A.,
October 2nd everywhere else).

JCT: Of course I applaud any video which exposes the inner
workings of the Banking Systems Engineering blueprint
http://johnturmel.com/bankmath.htm especially when there are such
other good videos around. So I applaud the nerve it takes to
publish a thesis on Mammon, I only hope he doesn't get laughed
out of banking systems engineering class.

MM: I'll leave you with a quote from Thomas Jefferson: "Banking
establishments are more dangerous than standing armies."

JCT: Only the interest-bearing loanshark models, not the
interest-free LETS time-based accounting models. I hope he's
noted the difference. Then again, he might be focusing on how
errant behavior made us fall of the bike but not on the
malfunction in the bike.

MM: Yours, Michael Moore MMFlint@... MichaelMoore.com

JCT: I'm praying he gets his blueprint right.
TRAILER: Michael Moore's 'Capitalism: A Love Story' - OPENS
NATIONWIDE OCTOBER 2nd!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhydyxRjujU

How will we grade Michael Moore's Banking Systems Engineering
Thesis?

JCT: On Thursday Aug 3 2009, John The Engineer Turmel registered
to contest my 70th election campaign in the Ontario byelection in
the riding of St.  Paul's in Toronto.

Meetings are being organized and I'll be posting videos of the
whole thing at Myspace since the 10 minute format at my Youtube
KingofthePaupers channel won't do. But you'll be able to find
everything via my index page at http://johnturmel.com/kotp.htm

At the very moment, I can raise the issues of:

1) Parker v. R. at the Ontario Superior Court to have all
marijuana prohibitions declared still invalid since at least
Terry Parker Day pursuant to the Interpretation Act (POLCOA).

2) Turmel v. CRTC at the Supreme Court of Canada on the courts
letting media exclude candidates from election debates; and I
jsut got an invite from Rogers for minor candidates to do a 1-
minute taped statement to be shown with the debate of the Big
Four. Dale Goldhawk is the organizer of the undemocratic
atrocity.

3) Turner v. R. at the Supreme Court of Canada for being
railroaded by an non-perfected appeal process.

And of course, can I convince the voters that the Toronto Dollar
is a good idea for them all to invest in and that the dragons who
do not buy in for their 10% profit in supporting their
communities lose to the King of the Dragons.

Neat, eh! I just have to tell people to search youtube for King
of the Dragons Den and the deal they were offered comes up. You
have to decide if you think it's a good idea and then watch and
see if the CBC fire-breathers went home to do some homework to
catch a good bet or whether everyone's going to know they blew
their decision.

Remember, just like calling a bet with underlay odds is an error
that costs you expected value, not calling a bet with overlay
odds is also an error that costs you expected value. I put a
winning proposition to them and now we have to see if the had the
brains to take the bet.

Especially the one who saw where the 5% profit came from in the
Berkshares system. If I'm asking him to finance one in his
community, I guess I don't mind him setting his own premium too!
And Pittsboro is offering 11% premium to keep trade local. Maybe
the 10% I suggested be used isn't so unreasonable. But if he
caught on to his profit at 5%, I wonder what he's going to do
when he realizes he can also profit at 10%?

Ahhhhhh. Beautiful suspense. From the brutal with the engineer
who dared challenge me in my specialization to the sublime with
only a nudge from 5% to 10% to perhaps start the debt liberation
revolution in Canada like it's spreading around the world.

So the Dragon story covers the money reform that's my usual
forte. Every problem caused by shortage of funds, I'll explain
how to use their Toronto Dollar system to fund the shortage.

Finally, as I made fun of Girlieman Governor Musclehead Arnold
Schwarzenegger for not doing like Governors of Argentinian
provinces who used small denomination interest-free bonds as
currency, I'll be able to make fun of Girlieman Premier Dalton
McGuinty for not using provincial bonds, especially, with his
being an Ottawa boy, that he's heard me explain how interest-free
financing would work for the past 30 years and it hasn't
penetrated yet.

This is going to be one heck of a fun election campaign.

JCT: You can see my CRTC videos or read my blog at
http://yahoogroups.com/group/turmel for info leading up to:

Federal Court of Appeal
Ottawa, Ontario, July 22, 2009

CORAM: NADON J.A.
        EVANS J.A.
        PELLETIER J.A.

Docket: 09-A-19
Date: 20090721

BETWEEN:

                        John C. Turmel
                                                    Applicant
                             and
                Canadian Radio-Television and
                Telecommunications Commission
                                                   Respondent

                               ORDER


UPON Notice of Motion by the applicant John C. Turmel for leave
to appeal the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications
Commission's (the CRTC's) decision 2009-184 dated April 8 2009
dismissing his complait concerning inequitable distribution of
the free-time political broadcast on Rogers Cable political
debate in the Brant 2007 provincial general election;

UPON the affidavit of the aplicant sworn October 4 2007,
UPON the applicant's written representations;
UPON the CRTC's record in response to the Notice of Motion; and
http://yahoogroups.com/group/turmel/message/3357
UPON the Applicant's Reply the the CRTC's response
http://yahoogroups.com/group/turmel/message/3360

THE COURT ORDERS: The Applicant's motion is dismissed with costs.
M. Nadon, J.A.

JCT: It's pretty depressing when you put together a good case,
the Crown responds, you beat them badly, and the referee then
awards the win to the guy who got beaten up. Why bother. And now
to file an application for leave to appeal as the last stop on
the railroading I received, why bother? Because I get to make my
case, force them to respond and get to beat them up and then 3
judges have to sign their names to the decision that gave the
victory to the guys who were laughed out of the debate. Justices
Marc Nadon, John Maxwell Evans, and Denis Pelletier of the
Federal Court of Appeal couldn't find one error to hang their
dismissal on, a drubbing of the opposition they got to crown the
victor. To puke generations of readers to come.

So why bother applying to the Supreme Court if it's so useless?
File Number: #
Appeal Court No: 09-A-19
                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
           (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA)
BETWEEN:
                          John C. Turmel
                                                        Applicant
                                              Appellant in appeal
                               and
                  Canadian Radio-Television and
                  Telecommunications Commission
                                                       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
Marc Nadon, John Maxwell Evans, and Denis Pelletier of the
Federal Court of Appeal 09-A-19 made July 22 2009 dismissing the
application for leave to appeal the Broadcasting Decision CRTC
2009-184 made on April 8 2009 which dismissed the Applicant's
complaint about inequitable distribution of the free-time
political broadcast on Rogers Cable political debate during the
Brant 2007 provincial general election.

THE GROUNDS ARE that the allocation of the free-time partisan
political broadcast was inequitable despite an Ontario Court of
Appeal ruling in R. v. CBC [1993] 51 C.P.R.(3d) that debates do
not have to include all candidates to be equitable.

Dated at Brantford on Aug 20 2009.
John C. Turmel, B. Eng.
8-37 Colborne St. E.,
Brantford ON N3T 2G3,
Tel/fax: 519-753-0645
Email: johnturmel@...

ORIGINAL TO:  THE REGISTRAR

NOTICE TO THE RESPONDENT: A respondent may serve and file a
memorandum in response to this application for leave to
appeal within 30 days after service of the application. If
no response is filed within that time, the Registrar will
submit this application for leave to appeal to the Court for
consideration pursuant to section 43 of the Supreme Court Act.

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


PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Applicant was an independent candidate in the 2003 Ontario
general election in Brant riding. Having participated in a
quarter century's worth of debates by that time, Applicant was
the only candidate who used visual aids such as newspaper
clippings, complementary currencies such as Toronto Dollars,
Guelph Greendollars, Maritimes Hours, computer diskette, rubber
ruler, etc. Like most candidates, Applicant wears the
Abolitionist Party button which is a lapel sticker saying "LETS"
for the Greencurrency Local Employment-Trading Software.
Applicant has a Royal Flush on a tie and wears a white hard-hat
saying "The Engineer" to open and close presentations."

2. Rogers debate moderator Tim Philp didn't like the Applicant
using visual aids when the other candidates did not and so, in
the 2004 federal general election debate, he unilaterally banned
visual aids and party or personal identification. Of course,
other than party buttons, this ban on visual aids did not affect
the presentations of the others, only Applicant's.

3. On July 21 2004, Applicant complained to the CRTC about
Rogers' interfering with candidates' presentations.

4. On Aug 11 2004, a letter from the CRTC informed Rogers of the
complaint but did nothing more about it.

5. Two more letters to the CRTC still got no response.

6. At the 2007 Ontario General Election debate for Brant riding
re-broadcast on Sep 29, Oct 6 & 8, Applicant displayed the party
button and was cut off by moderator Tim Philp who insisted it be
put down. Applicant put it on the lapel. The moderator would not
allow the continuation of the candidate's opening statement
unless it was taken off so Applicant obeyed and removed it.

7. Then Tim Philp ordered the Brantford police to remove the
candidate from the debate anyway.

8. On Sep 24 2007, I complained to the CRTC demanding they
guarantee all candidates equitable time, quantitatively and
qualitatively.

9. On Sep 25 2007, the CRTC gave Rogers three weeks, after the
election date, to respond.

10. On Sep 27 2007, Rogers refused Applicant an equitable share
of time saying the ejection was not for wearing the party button
but for interrupting the next speaker who had been told to speak
after Applicant had been cut off.

11. The three extra re-broadcasts of the inequitable debate took
place.

12. Trying to obtain relief before it was too late and the
election was over, Applicant sought an order of mandamus
compelling correction before it was too late within an
application for judicial review.

13. The Federal Court ruled it could not help until the CRTC had
issued a decision, even if too late to do anything about it.

14. Applicant then requested a decision of the Respondent on the
complaint and on April 8 2009, the CRTC dismissed Applicant's
complaint.

15. Applicant filed an Application for leave to appeal the CRTC
decision to the Federal Court of Appeal which was dismissed by
Justices Marc Nadon, John Maxwell Evans, and Denis Pelletier
without reasons on July 22 2009.

PART II - POINTS OF OBJECTION:

16. The issues raised are:
1) whether the licensee controls display of candidates'
promotional materials;
2) whether a candidate can be punished by the loss of time after
the moderator's command has been obeyed;
3) whether the Commission is derelict in its duty to regulate
and supervise air-time distribution beforehand;
4) whether the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in R. v. C.B.C.
that debates are not programs of partisan political character is
contradictory;
5) whether omitting the "all" for the Commission's policy
statements from the statute's "all rival parties and candidates"
is derelict;
6) whether the Ontario Court of Appeal's contradictory ruling
should be accepted as final, or
7) whether accepting the court ruling which corrupts the
democratic process by allowing the exclusion of candidates from
debates when they can issue new regulations that work is a
dereliction of the duty to regulate and supervise that election
debates be democratic.

PART III - STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT

17. Since I could not have been interrupting the next candidate
during my 1-minute opening statement, arguing that I interrupted
(after I had been interrupted by the moderator) is a mere false
pretext for denying equitable time for exhibiting my party
badge. The moderator had no right to interrupt my equitable
share of the free-time political broadcast time for the mere
display of a party decal. The Broadcast simply says that free
time must be shared equitably by all rival candidates, not that
free time must be shared equitably by all rival candidates "who
obey the Rogers dress code." (Issue #1)

18. Regardless, interrupting another candidate is not sufficient
cause for not following the equitable time requirements of the
CRTC, even if it was true, which is could not have been.

19. The CRTC has both a responsibility to enact regulations and
supervisory responsibility to ensure a democratic election
influence by the greatest influence of all, electronic media.
Paragraph 10(1)(e) of the Broadcasting Act empowers the
Commission to make regulations respecting the proportion of time
that may be devoted to the broadcasting of programs, including
advertisement or announcements, of a partisan political
character and the assignment of that time on an equitable basis
to political parties and candidates.

20. The CRTC has enacted several regulations requiring that,
during an election period, broadcasters allocate time for
broadcasting programs, advertisements or announcements or a
"partisan political character" on an equitable basis to
accredited political parties and rival candidates in the
election... With respect to debate programs held during an
election, the Commission noted that it may be impractical to
include all rival parties and candidates in one program.
However, the Commission stated that if this type of broadcast
takes place, all parties and candidates should be accommodated,
even if doing so requires that more than one program be
broadcast. Applicant accepts this Commission statement as the
rationale for why I asked that I be accommodated after the event
in obtaining an equitable share of the broadcast pie even if
doing so required that more than one program be broadcast or
appended.

21. Having no process to prevent undemocratic distributions
shows the Commission's failure to regulate and supervise that
the time pie be shared fairly. If one can figure out the
distribution of a cherry pie is unfair before the pie is eaten,
the Commission is derelict in being unable to judge that the
distribution of the time-pie is inequitable before it is
allocated on an inequitable basis to not all rival candidates.
(Issue #3)

22. Public Notice 1995-44, states that, pursuant to the Ontario
Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation (1993), the Commission's regulations regarding the
equitable allocation of time did not apply to election debate
programs because they are not programs of a "partisan political
character." This ruling that debates do not have to be shared
equitably like other broadcasts of partisan political character
because debates are not programs of partisan political character
is contradictory. And once the Court of Appeal had ruled that
the present regulations did not ensure that the time devoted to
the broadcasting of programs of a partisan political character
was shared on an equitable basis by political parties and
candidates, the Broadcasting Act empowers the Commission to make
better regulations to effect the intent that the time devoted to
the broadcasting of programs of a partisan political character
was shared on an equitable basis by all political parties and
candidates. (Issue #4)

23. The Commission further noted that it had reiterated this
statement in Broadcasting Circular 2007-5 issued in connection
with the 2007 Ontario provincial election, thus further not
fulfilling their mandate to ensure a democratic use of the
national airwaves by alerting the media that the Ontario Court
of Appeal has okayed excluding any candidate they want without
reason if they merely called it a debate. So the Commission to
ensure democratic election broadcasting is peddling this
judicial rationalization for why election debate broadcasts do
not have to be shared equitably among all rival political
candidates anymore. Yet it has the duty to come up with
regulations that work and to supervise that democracy works, not
accept a court ruling rationalizing candidate exclusion as still
being democratic. The CRTC is not limited by the court's
contradictory decision on its first bad efforts to ensure
democracy and can always try to make better policy a second
time. That's why I am challenging not only the O.C.A. ruling
that debates featuring partisan political opinions are not
partisan political programming (Issue #6) but also that the CRTC
is not limited by it and can enact new regulations trying to be
more effective at ensuring democracy again. After all, sharing a
pie isn't such a complicated deal. (Issue #7)

24. Of course, it doesn't help that in the 1980s and 1990s, the
legislation said: "all rival parties and candidates." Applicant
doubts that Parliament dropped the word "all" and suggests that
the Commission chose to omit it in their policy statements. Of
course, if Parliament has dropped the "all" from "all parties
and candidates," then that explains why the O.C.A. would rule
that the media can now exclude any candidate they want from
debates since they don't have to have them on at all. But
Applicant alleges that it is an omission of the word by the
Commission and not a deletion by Parliament. If Parliament did
remove the "all," I am asking this Court to order them to put it
back in. (Issue #5)

25. Of course, if Rogers may exclude any candidate at their
total editorial discretion because they call it a debate, it's a
bonus to hide such absolute control over participation if they
can also make up rules offensive enough to prompt some
candidates to rebel, especially those whom the changes in format
are intended to disfavor. Of course, since the Commission has
omitted to mention that Applicant had obeyed the fuhrer's order
before being ejected, the Commission must therefore fail to see
that the issue herein is not breaking Big Brother's Rules, it's
about being punished after obeying; and about how much a
candidate can be punished by loss of air-time after he has
already obeyed. (Issue #2)

PART V - ORDER SOUGHT

26. On all these grounds, Applicant seeks an Order granting
leave to appeal from the judgment of Justices Marc Nadon, John
Maxwell Evans, and Denis Pelletier of the Federal Court of
Appeal 09-A-19 made July 22 2009 dismissing the application for
leave to appeal the Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2009-184 made on
April 8 2009 which dismissed the Applicant's complaint about
inequitable distribution of the free-time political broadcast on
Rogers Cable political debate during the Brant 2007 provincial
general election.

PART VI - TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

R. v. C.B.C. [1993] 51 C.P.R.(3d)

PART VII - CRTC REGULATIONS BEING RELIED ON

Public Notice CRTC 1995-44

Broadcasting Circular CRTC 2007-5


Dated at Brantford on Aug 20 2009.
John C. Turmel, B. Eng.

JCT: So why bother applying to the Supreme Court if it's so
useless? Because I get to make my arguments, the Crown has to
respond, and I get to beat them up once again and having three of
the highest referees in Canada fix the decision and award the
victory to the guy who got beat up. Usually without any reasons.

So three Federal Court of Appeal Justices signed their names
allowing Big Brother to exclude candidates from debates and now
I'm going to get three Supremes to put their names down on the
atrocity against democracy. That's why it's worth having fought
over 30 cases right to the top.

Plus I'm sure it's some kind of record for a non-lawyer. And it's
therapeutic to put them through having to vindicate a violation
of democracy and then get to beat them on on a moral issue before
the stinker of a decision is handed down. So:

JCT: I found out that my second part was bad and I had
to replace it with a new posting.

Part 1/3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJqLtam5iak
Part 2/3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9DGC54pfMs is wrong
Part 3/3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72aaT_qGdIA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15t6onvhkFc is the new number 2
But all you have to do is search at youtube for

King of the Dragon's Den

and the three videos come up.

JCT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJqLtam5iak
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9DGC54pfMs and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72aaT_qGdIA are the three video
reports on the May 31 2009 appearance of KingofthePaupers John
Turmel on CBC's Dragon's Den to pitch them on the idea of
investing in their Toronto or Calgary Dollar community currency
to make a quick 10% premium and help their town at the same time.

I guess they couldn't have been too enthused when I introduced
myself as John The Engineer saying: if engineering winners is
being a dragon, meet the King of the Dragons. Of course, I wanted
to grab their attention so they'd want to hear me out.

One dragon caught on right away when he asked how I could offer
them 10% from 110 Toronto Dollars on $100CA when the Berkshares I
had cited in the US were only offering them 5%, $100 Berkshares
on $95US. At least he got the concept even though Pittsboro
offers 11%, 100 Pittsboro Plentys for $90US!

One asked if I was so sharp, why wasn't I rich? Of course, I've
had two bank accounts seized for taxes owed on my winnings before
the Casino Turmel bust and ended noting that having money didn't
mean your were particularly smart, it only means you got lucky.

One of them got mouthy, an engineer, so I flashed my $500
Brantford Casino Poker Chip at him and told him to put his money
where his mouth was. When he stopped laughing, I administered my
usual coup de grace: Flash the cash, bye bye trash. Making a
multi-millionaire back down to the King of the Paupers, wild!


Of course, no one's ever beaten him up before on his own show.
He's used to dealing with on-their-knees supplicants desperate
for investment and never expected a professional gambler trying
to turn him on to a good bet (that also helps the community) for
free. They thought all contestants were pauper beggars and didn't
expect to run into the pauper king.

You all know how I love beating up their brains in written online
combat and it's even more fun in live video combat. Readers here,
who know me, know how quickly I can cut the feet out from under
an opponent and smash him with ridicule. They had not been told
who I was and even if they didn't follow politics and law for the
past 30 year, when I mentioned the Mathematics of Gambling
Engineer at the United Nations with the Guinness Record, it
should have cautioned their tongues. But people sitting on their
big pile of chips that keeps growing think they're good and have
no idea how those of us who score by achievement, not possession,
think of their records.

They couldn't get past that I wasn't out to profit with them,
that I only wanted it to deliver a fair game, that I didn't want
an edge from possessing the chips, that I only sought an edge in
playing the game. They're so used to scoring by merely having
lots of chips they can't imagine someone not interested in
scoring for having chips, but in scoring the pot.

I can't help feeling they'll have to cut out the King of the
Dragons forcing the multi-millionaire junior fire-breather to
back down from putting his money where his mouth was. It was
about as close to a brawl as you can get with a few good
beatings. It was exhilarating drilling the snooty big-shots with
quick one-liners prepared after years and years of honing. It's
like thinking you're in a simple bar-room brawl when you've
accidentally bumped into Mike Tyson. To get to beat up live
victims on National TV was a lot like the jolts I'd get while
protesting interest rates outside the Bank of Canada in the early
1980s and arguing with the economists. For a couple of years, I
had plenty of gnurds willing to argue with me when I knew they
were wrong. But after awhile, they got tired of having to back
down from my bets and stopped trying to challenge me.

I bet the producer $10 Casino Brantford Dollars that the King of
the Dragons would be too hot to handle on their show and he bet
me $10 Toronto Dollars he'd go purchase that they would air it.

Fortunately, I had my audiotape on so even if they cut the clash
with the King of the Dragons from the Dragons Den series, I'll
always be able to play it. I don't think it's right to post such
a vicious exchange before they get to play it first.

Besides, I can't tell if any dragons invested because I don't
know. All they have to do is buy in for some Toronto or Calgary
dollars to score their promised premium.

But I'll be registering in the St. Paul's Ontario provincial
byelection tomorrow and I'll be to make the same offer to Toronto
voters to buy into the Toronto Dollars system before we find out
if any of them have any brains to take the good bet too.

They said they'd give me a couple of weeks notice if they
broadcast CBC Dragon's Den torched by King of the Dragons.

JCT: An article too good not to cite.

http://trustcurrency.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-community-currencies.html

Trust is the Only Currency

Saturday, August 29, 2009
Why community currencies?
by Deirdre Kent

DK: There is mounting evidence and increased awareness that the
world is in serious trouble, environmentally, socially, and
economically. In most cases we're well aware of what actions are
required in order to address the problems; the trouble is that
there never seems to be enough money to carry out necessary
remedies!

JCT: From http://johnturmel.com/poembank.htm

"With tools, materials and trades that cover total range,
Yet one ingredient is lacking, money to exchange."

DK: People often fail to make a connection between environmental
degradation or social disintegration and the design of our money
system.

JCT: After 30 years of trying to explain the scam with the chips
to an audience that sees without seeing and hears without
hearing, as predicted when discussing Mammon, I'm startled to see
a general awakening taking place but I've always predicted that
though they'll never understand on paper the theory that the
rotation of the bicycle wheels exerts a force that keeps you
straight up, once they're riding, they don't need to understand
how those rotational forces work in gyroscopes. Just trust the
engineer who's ready with the blueprint if you really want to
know.
As more and more people use their community currency, and when
they find out that their IOU for an hour's labor is also
acceptable all over the world too, like my IOUs for
accommodations in my 1999 European tour, there's be a quiet take-
down of the usury slavery system.
Notice Africa and Arabia using cell-phone credits as the new
currency and no one's been shooting their banksters. It's forgive
and forget and get on with economic heaven that's going on.

DK: At the heart of the money shortage is a monetary system that
drives exponential growth, of everything!

JCT: The money shortage is caused by the usury (positive
feedback) that makes debt exponential. Doubling and doubling debt
drives the demand for exponential doubling and doubling of
resource capture to stay even in their death-gamble mort-gage.

DK: Exponential growth cannot be sustained on a planet with
finite resources. The shortage of money comes about because most
of the money we use has been created by commercial banks as
interest bearing debt. Since the principal has been created but
not the interest, people and firms are obliged to compete with
one another to find the money to pay the interest, causing some
at least to go further into debt, and putting enormous pressure
on natural resources.

JCT: And if the bankers decide not to let the least go further
into debt, what happens? Foreclosure and seizure of collateral in
the cage backing the chips. They have power of life and death
over everyone. They can deny credit to one, foreclose, and
auction off the goods and grant credit to another in time for the
auction. The power to allocate credit is the power of life and
that's why it's called a death-gamble (mort-gage) where a ratio
of Principal/(Principal+Interest) survive while a ratio of
Interest /(Principal+Interest) get knocked out of the game into
foreclosure.

DK: Each year the total money supply must increase by at least
the amount of interest demanded, increasing the debt burden in
every indebted sector - company, credit card, student, mortgage,
and hire purchase. To recoup the interest on debts, businesses
build into their prices a percentage for interest.

JCT: They must charge a minimum Principal + Interest and maybe a
little profit but not likely more than just enough to at least
survive.

DK: The result is that those who are net debtors pay more on the
combination of their shopping baskets and their debt than they
can ever earn from interest on their savings or investments. One
result is that money is constantly being transferred from the
many net debtors to the few net creditors, widening the gap
between rich and poor.

JCT: Net debtors don't have any net savings which is why Jesus
said interest causes "him who has abundance to be given more and
from him who has no abundance, even what he has will be taken
away;" Reverse Robin Hood, Christ's most often quoted verse in
the scriptures (7 times) describing how interest takes from the
poor to give to the rich.


'Closing the Gap' becomes an impossibility.

JCT: Open an interest-free account at the UNILETS timebank, cut
checks to settle all your interest-bearing mort-gages and loans
and after that, all payments go against principal so all debts
get paid off someday and the gap is steadily closed.

DK: The money supply is forced to increase exponentially and
economic activity must constantly expand to avoid inflation. This
demand for 'growth' in turn brings escalating pressures on
society and the environment. The driving force behind the
economic growth imperative is the interest bearing debt money
system, a neglected factor in the sustainability discussion.

JCT: Or interest-bearing credit money. There's nothing wrong with
debt-money (IOU-based) and asset-money (collateral-based), it's
only the interest that causes the positive feedback instability
in either medium.
Say we both have assets of 1000 minutes in our cell phone
accounts and in payment of service, I transfer 100 so you have
1100 and I have 900. Or, say we both have liabilities of 1000
minutes owed to the company and I go more negative to -1100 and you
go less negative to -900. It doesn't matter whether we're trading
debt-currency or asset-currency, it's the feedback that's the
problem, only. Nehemiah 5:10 "Let the exacting of interest stop."

KD: Money as a measure that represents finite resources is at
odds with a system based on exponential growth. With this system
the business cycle of 'boom and bust' is inevitable and an
inflation rate persistently as high as 3% erodes the value of
money for everyone - business and professional people, teachers,
nurses, those on salaries, those on benefits or in retirement.
Although a great deal of attention has been paid to reforming
national and international currencies, a quiet, unassuming
worldwide movement to reclaim monetary democracy at a local level
has begun - namely the movement to create local currencies.


JCT: Quiet!!?? As an original LETS interest-free currency software
engineer, I've shouted the benefits of interest-free currency
from the rooftops and election podia in going on 70 elections
next week. I got the UNILETS resolution onto the Millennium
Declaration even though few noticed. I'd endorse local interest-
free currencies my LETS software pioneered yes, but I must also
endorse the UNILETS resolution for a global interest-free "time-
based currency" "to restructure the global financial
architecture." If it works on a small database, it'll work on a
big one, after all, it's only a chip bank.

> Living Economies believes that an essential ingredient of an
abundant, sustainable and just economy is interest free money at
every level - international, national and local, a belief at the
heart of the world wide development of thousands of community
currencies over the last 20 years.

JCT: Just link to the Time Standard of Money land it's
automatically System for Trading Employment Locally and
Internationally at the United Nations. STELINU backwards is
United Nations International & Local Employment Trading System.
  UNILETS Resolution C6 to governments to use a "time-based
currency" "to restructure the global financial architecture."

DK: In a culture where the means of exchange is dominated by
supranational and national currencies like the US dollar and the
Euro most people fail to appreciate the potential power of
currencies designed for regional and local use.

JCT: It's not that we fail to notice, it's that we're not
informed because it doesn't make the news. My
http://youtube.com/kingofthepaupers channel is on main source of
information on global banking systems engineering and local
currency installations. When was the last time you heard of tent
cities in Latin America? In US America they have the money to be
losing, in Latin they didn't and switched to regional monies. The
revolution is quiet but now massive and the change to global at
the flick of a switch, (upgrade to interest-free software). And
no shooting of bankers for what they did to us! Twitter, Google,
large databases are soon going to be facilitating time-based
payments. Between each other eventually!!

DK: In the face of the increasing inability of the present
monetary system to satisfy the needs of people and protect the
environment, the introduction of a comprehensive range of
currency systems will allow people to choose the one most suited
to the nature of a particular trade.

JCT: Since I already use my rudimentary UNILETS timebank account
http://johnturmel.com/unilets.htm for both local and global
trades, I would hope to maximize efficiency by needing only one.

DK: Recently developed smartcard technology can accommodate up to
five different currencies simultaneously.

JCT: Canadian dollar, US Dollar, Euros, Hours. If Hours are good
in Europe, US, Canada, why not use just one account. I think the
cell-phone is the uncontestable most efficient medium of
exchange.

DK: Whereas the national currency is kept artificially scarce to
maximise profits for the banks, local currencies have the
advantage of being in sufficient supply for all desirable trades.
With plenty of local currency in their purses - whether
electronic or real - shoppers can really choose to buy local.

JCT: And use the local currency to buy global too. When the local
currency is pegged to the Time Standard of Money (how many
dollars per unskilled hour child labor) Hours earned locally can
be intertraded with other timebanks globally! In 1999, I paid for
39/40 nights in Europe with an IOU for a night back in Canada
worth 5 Hours and it didn't make me short of Hour credits back in
Canada.

DK: A second advantage is that it gives people ownership of their
currency, notes created for a particular community give them
identification with place. Thirdly, with an abundant and interest
free currency designed for local exchanges, retailers can choose
local suppliers, maximising self-reliance and reducing
unnecessary transport costs. Community currencies will therefore
create incentives for import replacements.

JCT: Absolutely, home-grown will be at useful advantage in a
world where no one has to export unpurchasable-at-home-surplus.

DK: A fourth advantage is that manufacturers and primary
industries, freed from paying interest on their own currency, can
then choose to make longer term commercial decisions.

JCT: And lower their prices from P+I to P!!

DK: This will favour, for example, organic production of food and
the manufacture of more durable goods. Importantly, in an age
where increased automation and new technologies are creating
mounting underemployment and joblessness, a variety of sufficient
local currencies will increase employment opportunities, helping
stem the tide of increased social disruption.
Benefits derived from a change to interest free money and the
creation of diverse and well designed complementary currency
systems will flow upwards from local, through regional, national,
and supranational levels, and in the process diminish the gap
between rich and poor.

JCT: Benefits derived from a UNILETS time-based currency will
flow downwards from supranational to national, regional, local
levels and in the process eliminate what causes the gap between
rich and poor, the bane of usury.

DK: Additional benefits include increased importance of
traditionally undervalued activities, discouragement of
environmentally destructive activities, increased support for
small enterprise development and the strengthening of social
relationships.

JCT: Everybody wins earns a share.

DK: The potential positive impact of community currencies on the
environment and on society will be profound.

JCT: In an instant!!

DK: At the same time, developing the best working models possible
will provide economic 'life rafts' should there be collapse in
the global financial system.

JCT: The best working model is the UNILETS time-based model.

Posted by Heather Young at 9:15 AM

JCT: An inspiring post.

>August 29, 2009
>Mark Herpel said...
>editor@...
>Excellent post.

JCT: Check out his magazine, no mention of global UNILETS. On
purpose.

Posted: August 28, 2009, 3:15 PM by National Post

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/08/28/sebastia\
n-gorka-sahriah-finance-is-a-zero-sum-game.aspx

Sebastian Gorka: Sahriah finance is a zero-sum game

JCT: Not too often the mistake is in the title.

SG: We know that banks need money, especially now.

JCT: If they worked like piggy banks, sure, but they really work
like casino banks issuing new chips as loans. See my "How banks
create money" at my youtube kingofthepaupers channel explaining
the blueprint of the banking system flows:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WefdeNLup3M


SG: The lie is that Islam forbids the charging of interest. In
truth, as anyone versed in the Muslim faith is aware, Islam has
something to say about riba, or usury, but it does not outright
ban interest.

JCT: From http://johnturmel.com/poembibl.htm for people who think
usury is excessive interest, Ezekiel said:

EZEKIEL
In 18:5: "Suppose a man takes not much interest,
He takes no usury. He'll live! His actions I have blessed. (1)
Suppose he has a son who takes excessive interest,
And lends at usury. He'll die! His actions I detest.  (2)
But if this son too has a son who doesn't do the same,
He does not take the pledge for loans, his greed he overcame.
He takes no usury nor interest that is too high, (3)

Ezekiel declared that usury and interest,
Could have a different effect, there was a simple test.
If interest demanded is of something that can breed,
Such interest is payable and not sin I concede.

So if you lend a hundred head and ask to get two more,
That might not be excessive action that he would abhor.
But if you gain all of the calves and he still owes you some,
That would be judged excessive. That is more than maximum.

And if the interest is on some silver or some gold,
It's usury because there are no babies to behold!
It's interest if principal can breed to multiply,
It's usury if principal cannot so classify.

JCT: I put Mohammed's condemnation of interest in my poen too.

SG: China has our dollars yet our banks need cash inflows.

JCT: Problems only experienced by piggy bankers.

SG: A few years ago the chairman of the Bank of England could have
stopped the internal usurpation of the British financial system. Now
it is too late. For America it is not. We can act to preserve our
system and its values.

JCT: Paupers sleeping in the streets, millions without health care,
he
wants to preserve the mort-gage death-gamble loan-sharking system.

SG: It is time that we... face and began to battle the political,
legal and economic subversion of our system.

JCT: Rah rah for the present system, not.

Dr. Sebastian Gorka is military affairs fellow with the
Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington, D. C., and
associate fellow with the Joint Special Operations University,
Florida. gorka@...

JCT: Finally, as for interest-free financing providing a zero-sum
game where the bank issues chips in exchange for collateral with no
interest win to the banbsters at the expense of the destruction of the
borrowers, as fast as workers bring new production to the bank, they
get new chips. As storehouses are filled by new deliveries, everyone
gets more chips. Harvesting the world's abundance is not a zero-sum
game. This guy's an American expert on islam, har har har har.

JCT: I've already written about the irregularities going on at
the Ontario Court Court of Appeal with respect to James Turner's
appeal a few times. Despite his letter to the Registrar demanding
an answer, no satisfactory response has been forthcoming though
they've rescheduled the un-perfected appeal for Tues Aug 18 2009.
So I've advised to demand proof of the a perfecte appeal before
showing up. James sent this to the Deputy Registrar:

Court File No. C49904

                      COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Between:
                              JAMES TURNER
                                                 Appellant-Accused
                                and

                       Her Majesty the Queen
                                              Respondent/Plaintiff


Friday Aug 14 2009
Attn: Sandra.Theroulde@...

          REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF PERFECTION OR ORDER
              DISPENSING WITH THE RULES OF PROCEDURE.


0. On July 31 2009, I wrote Registrar of the Ontario Court of
Appeal Huguette Thomson that:

1. The correspondence in the court file shows that you informed
me that the transcript prepared by the Ottawa Court Reporter had
been rejected by the Court of Appeal Registry and we were all
waiting for the transcripts to be available before each filing
our facta and then the Certificate of Completion. Unfortunately,
while upgrading the transcript, the court reporter died and the
transcript languished on the back burner of the Ottawa Reporter's
Office but is now ready.

2. Yet, I was informed that the appeal had somehow been scheduled
for hearing on June 16 2009 without the transcripts, the factums
or the Certificate of Perfection, in Kingston after Appellant had
indicated I wanted to be heard in Toronto with my supporters.

3. Criminal Appeal Rule 15: "Where the appellant is not
represented by counsel, the Registrar may require the Attorney
General to prepare an appeal book."

4. Fine, the Crown has been preparing the appeal books for the
self-represented since R. v. Parker in 2002.

5. Rule 16(1) "Except in an inmate appeal, all parties to an
appeal shall deliver a factum."

6. There are no exceptions for skipping the filing of factums in
an appeal. Is my R. v. Turner the first appeal to have gone to
hearing without any factums in the record? Is this a first?

7. Rule 18(1) "Except in an inmate appeal, the appellant shall
serve on every other party to the appeal one copy of the appeal
book, one copy of the transcript and one copy of the appellant's
factum and immediately thereafter shall file with the Registrar
proof of service of the appeal book, the transcript and the
factum..."

8. None of these documents nor proofs of service have been filed.

9. Rule 18(2) The appellant shall file with the Registrar two
copies of a certificate of perfection stating..."

10. The Certificates of Perfection have not been filed. Is
scheduling the appeal without it another first?

11. Rule 18(3) "the appellant shall perfect the appeal within 90
days after the transcript has been delivered to the Court of
Appeal."

12. Transcripts have just been mailed to the Court of Appeal.

13. Despite the failure to comply with these four rules, I was
given notice by the Crown that the hearing of the appeal for June
16 2009 was now a fait accomplit which could only be changed by
Order of a judge.

14. I brought these irregularities to the attention of Justice
MacPherson and asked for an Order quashing the hearing date until
of the appeal until all transcripts, facta and Certificate of
Perfection were filed upon perfection of the appeal. I also asked
how the Crown had managed to get the appeal scheduled without the
required filing of transcripts in Rule 18(3); the required filing
of factums in Rule 16(1); the required filing of the Certificate
of Perfection in Rule 18(2); the required proofs of service in
Rule 18(1)?

15. Justice MacPherson dismissed the motion to quash the date of
the hearing until the rules had been complied with and approved
the unobtrusive way of taping the proceedings for my own notes
with a small tape recorder.  I was told that the court would
explain at my appeal why they were not proceeding by the rules.

16. Before the hearing of the appeal, a member of the panel
slated to hear my appeal died and it was delayed.

17. Appellant has since continued to try to find out how the
Crown was able to schedule the hearing without complying with
rules 16(1), 18(1), 18(2), 18(3).

18. I again received notice from the Crown that the appeal is
once again scheduled for hearing on Aug 18 2009 upon the
incomplete record complained about in Kingston.

19. I ask the Registrar of the Ontario Court of Appeal to explain
why the Crown was able to schedule the hearing of the incomplete
appeal without complying with Rule 18(3) requiring transcripts,
Rule 16(1) requiring facta, Rule 18(2) requiring Certificates of
Perfection and Rule 18(1) requiring proofs of service? Yours
truly, James Turner, Appellant.

20. To date, the Registrar has not been able to explain how a
non-perfected appeal could have gotten around the rules to be
scheduled without all the documents required to perfect the
appeal.

21. On Thurs Aug 12 2009, Sandra.Theroulde@... emailled
the Appellent to explain:
"Further to our telephone conversation and your subsequent e-mail
dated August 11, 2009, you are advised that this appeal was
originally scheduled to be heard on June 16, 2009 on the basis of
the crown's representation that it was ready to be argued. You
applied for an adjournment on the basis that the matter was not
yet ready to proceed. Your request was dealt with by Justice
MacPherson on June 9, 2009. He refused to grant an adjournment
but indicated that you could renew your request before the panel
scheduled to hear the appeal.
Unfortunately, for reasons beyond our control the appeals
scheduled for hearing on June 16, 2009  had to be adjourned. They
have been re-scheduled for hearing at the next sitting of appeals
in Kingston which occurs on August 18, 2009. You are still
entitled to request an adjournment although you should be
prepared to argue your appeal if the adjournment is refused.
Any further issues or concerns you may have with respect to the
scheduling of the appeal can be addressed to the panel on August
18, 2009. Sandra Theroulde
Deputy Registrar and Manager of Court Administration

22. Since when is a representation that a Certificate of
Perfection has been filed substitute for a Certificate of
Perfection being filed? A Crown representation is an improper
substitute for a Certificate of Perfection.

23. At no point has the Registrar explained how the Crown has
been able to circumvent the rules so I must conclude the
Registrar probably helped in the circumvention of the rules. Why
is registrar ignoring the Crown's breaking the rules unless the
Registrar is in on it?

24. The final irregularity is hearing the appeal in Kingston with
inmate appeals. I am not an inmate and do not wish to be treated
like one either before or after the hearing of the non-perfected
appeal.

25. The transcripts and affidavit of service were filed within
the last two weeks and the rules say I have 90 days to file
factums and perfect the appeal from the filing of the transcript.

26. Though the Court seems untroubled by these irregularities, I
do not want an appeal hearing without the proper documentation.
If you want me to attend the hearing of the non-perfected appeal
in Kingston, please fax me a copy of the Certificate of
Perfection or an Order dispensing with the rules of procedure in
my case.

Yours truly,
_______________________________
James Turner, Appellant
C-2501 Prince of Wales,
Ottawa, K2C 3H1
Tel/Fax: 613-212-3344/519-753-0645
Email: jamesturner1326@...

CC: mmcguire@...
Hai-Anh.Nguyen@...
johnturmel@...

JCT: I've already written about the irregularities going on in
the backrooms of the Ontario Court Court of Appeal with respect
to James Turner's appeal. More shenanigans deserve a complaint to
the Registrar in charge of the administration:


Court File No. C49904

                      COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Between:
                              JAMES TURNER
                                                 Appellant-Accused
                                and

                       Her Majesty the Queen
                                              Respondent/Plaintiff


July 31 2009

Huguette Thomson, Registrar
Ontario Court of Appeal
130 Queen St. W.
Toronto Ontario
COA.e-files@...

Dear Ms. Thomson:

1. The correspondence in the court file shows that you informed
me that the transcript prepared by the Ottawa Court Reporter had
been rejected by the Court of Appeal Registry and we were all
waiting for the transcripts to be available before each filing
our facta and then the Certificate of Completion. Unfortunately,
while upgrading the transcript, the court reporter died and the
transcript languished on the back burner of the Ottawa Reporter's
Office but is now ready.

2. Yet, I was informed that the appeal had somehow been scheduled
for hearing on June 16 2009 without the transcripts, the factums
or the Certificate of Perfection, in Kingston after Appellant had
indicated I wanted to be heard in Toronto with my supporters.

3. Criminal Appeal Rule 15: "Where the appellant is not
represented by counsel, the Registrar may require the Attorney
General to prepare an appeal book."

4. Fine, the Crown has been preparing the appeal books for the
self-represented since R. v. Parker in 2002.

5. Rule 16(1) "Except in an inmate appeal, all parties to an
appeal shall deliver a factum."

6. There are no exceptions for skipping the filing of factums in
an appeal. Is my R. v. Turner the first appeal to have gone to
hearing without any factums in the record? Is this a first?

7. Rule 18(1) "Except in an inmate appeal, the appellant shall
serve on every other party to the appeal one copy of the appeal
book, one copy of the transcript and one copy of the appellant's
factum and immediately thereafter shall file with the Registrar
proof of service of the appeal book, the transcript and the
factum..."

8. None of these documents nor proofs of service have been filed.

9. Rule 18(2) The appellant shall file with the Registrar two
copies of a certificate of perfection stating..."

10. The Certificates of Perfection have not been filed. Is
scheduling the appeal without it another first?

11. Rule 18(3) "the appellant shall perfect the appeal within 90
days after the transcript has been delivered to the Court of
Appeal."

12. Transcripts have just been mailed to the Court of Appeal.

13. Despite the failure to comply with these four rules, I was
given notice by the Crown that the hearing of the appeal for June
16 2009 was now a fait accomplit which could only be changed by
Order of a judge.

14. I brought these irregularities to the attention of Justice
MacPherson and asked for an Order quashing the hearing date until
of the appeal until all transcripts, facta and Certificate of
Perfection were filed upon perfection of the appeal. I also asked
how the Crown had managed to get the appeal scheduled without the
required filing of transcripts in Rule 18(3); the required filing
of factums in Rule 16(1); the required filing of the Certificate
of Perfection in Rule 18(2); the required proofs of service in
Rule 18(1)?

15. Justice MacPherson dismissed the motion to quash the date of
the hearing until the rules had been complied with and approved
the unobtrusive way of taping the proceedings for my own notes
with a small tape recorder.  I was told that the court would
explain at my appeal why they were not proceeding by the rules.

16. Before the hearing of the appeal, a member of the panel
slated to hear my appeal died and it was delayed.

17. Appellant has since continued to try to find out how the
Crown was able to schedule the hearing without complying with
rules 16(1), 18(1), 18(2), 18(3).

18. I again received notice from the Crown that the appeal is
once again scheduled for hearing on Aug 18 2009 upon the
incomplete record complained about in Kingston.

19. I ask the Registrar of the Ontario Court of Appeal to explain
why the Crown was able to schedule the hearing of the incomplete
appeal without complying with Rule 18(3) requiring transcripts,
Rule 16(1) requiring facta, Rule 18(2) requiring Certificates of
Perfection and Rule 18(1) requiring proofs of service?

Yours truly,

_______________________________
James Turner, Appellant
C-2501 Prince of Wales,
Ottawa, K2C 3H1
Tel/Fax: 613-212-3344/519-753-0645
Email: jamesturner1326@...

CC: mmcguire@...
Hai-Anh.Nguyen@...
johnturmel@...

JCT: I've just added some recent discoveries to my Bible Monetary
Reform page: http://johnturmel.com/poembibl.htm

I found on Buddhism:

"One discerns wrong livelihood as wrong livelihood, and right
livelihood as right livelihood. And what is wrong livelihood?
Scheming, persuading, hinting, belittling, and charging interest.
This is wrong livelihood."
--Siddharta Gautama Buddha in his sermon on the Eightfold Path
(Majjhima Nikaya Suttra 117)

JCT: To verse:

The Majjhima Nikaya Suttra 117 test:
Where Buddha says "Wrong livelihood is charging interest."

JCT: I've also found out that the great Hindu Brahmans were
Abolitionists too:

"Hinduism
A Brahmana and a Kshatriya shall not lend anything at interest...
'God weighed in the scales the crime of killing a learned
Brahmana against the crime of charging interest; the slayer of
the Brahmana remained at the top, the charger of interest sank
downwards.'
(Vasishtha, The Sacred Laws of the Aryas, Part II, Chptr 2, vs 40-42)
Note how the Hindu Sage Vasishtha considered charging interest a
crime worse han murder!  Real and blatant slavery of men, women
and children, is rampant in India because of India's disregard
for her own Hindu principles.

JCT: So I put that to verse and added it to my poem:

HINDUISM
Vasishtha, Chapter 2, Part II, verse 40 of the laws,
Of Aryas say Brahmans don't take interest because:
God weighed in scales the crime of killing and of interest;
And found loansharking worst of crimes compared to all the rest.


JCT: And while I was at it, I decided to stress how Jesus' most
remembered phrase explained how a bank account works! I added the
next four verses to the chapter THIS WORLD'S LAW OF ABUNDANCE

"So Luke, Marc, Matthew, Thomas, Peter, seven times get right,
What most preoccupied the Christ: the Beast he had in sight.
Death-gamble mort-gage was oppression yoke of slavery,
To battle loansharks for the world was why his bravery."

JCT: Seven times he is quoted talking about taking interest from
the poor to pay interest to the rich! And almost no one knows
what the most cited quote in Christendom means yet. Har har har.

JCT: Anyone following our hundreds of medpot court battles know how
many dozens of times a judge has said he would not permit taping
despite Section 136 saying nothing stops anyone from taping for their
own notes. Let's you have to argue for yourself, like many do these
days, and you have Alzheimer's. Sure would help to have a tape to
remember what you said the previous day. Not a transcript available,
even free as some refusing judges have ordered, three months later.

Parker has the same request before Justice Tulloch as we've many times
raised but James Turner finally got an answer, and not from a lower-
court judge, but from an Ontario Court of Appeal judge.
Of course, I've detailed the dozen OCA judges who have permitted me to
tape my proceedings for my notes, even if my memories were transcribed
and posted on the internet later that day. But I've never had a
highest judge deal with the request until James Turner.

In refusing to delay his in-complete appeal for which no transcripts,
factums or Certificate of Completion were filed, the judge did order
that James be allowed to tape record the proceedings.

It never registered until today how big a win that is.
James is now in the process of getting the signed endorsement of the
judge or even a signed Order with with court seal (just the signed
endorsement is really enough) and when he does, we're going to post it
so everyone can refer to the highest court in Ontario ordering that
the tape recorder be allowed!!!

Wow, the Turner "Turn-on Taping" decision.
Wow, wow, wow, wow!!!
Stay tuned for location of signed order.

JCT: I spent the past few weeks commenting on the "problem" of
California being forced to pay its debts with IOUs at a couple of
hundred newspapers and blog sites:

Jct: There's nothing wrong with small denomination California
State IOUs if anyone can pay their taxes with them. When
Argentina"s government workers were faced with cuts, their unions
talked 6 state governments into paying them with small-
denomination state bonds which could be used to pay for state
services and taxes by everyone.
When the local currency is pegged to the Time Standard of Money
(how many dollars per unskilled hour child labor) Hours earned
locally can be intertraded with other timebanks globally! In
1999, I paid for 39/40 nights in Europe with an IOU for a night
back in Canada worth 5 Hours. U.N. Millennium Declaration UNILETS
Resolution C6 to governments is for a time-based currency to
restructure the global financial architecture.
Too bad California IOUs won"t be accepted in payment for state
taxes and services like state bonds were in Argentina. Too bad
California IOUs will be denominated too big to use as local
currency. Too bad Argentina people were smart enough to avoid the
tent-cities catastrophe and California people are too stupid to
follow their example.
See http://youtube.com/kingofthepaupers

Some headlines from those sites:

090624 Are California's IOUs an Unconstitutional Bill of Credit?
090627 IOUs a sign of fiscal mismanagement.
090630 California has nothing left but IOUs
090630 California's IOU Fever is Likely To Spread To Other States
090701 Bill Mitchell Letter to the Governor of California
http://www.moslereconomics.com/2009/07/01/california-iou-suggestion/comment-page\
-1/#comment-8099

Letter to the Governor of California
Dear Governor Schwarzenegger

I note that the State of California is planning to issue IOUs
(registered warrants) from tomorrow (July 2) to ease your cash
situation in the face of the political dispute you are having
over the budget with the Democrats.

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=3145&cpage=1#comment-714
My latest blog - California IOUs are not currency, but they could
be!
- analyses this situation and suggests that you "tax-empower"
these IOUs
- a move that will radically enhance the options available to
you. You can read the blog here

In summary:

1. It would be economic madness to start cutting your deficit now
given the extent of labour market deterioration your state is
currently enduring.

2. The present plan to issue IOUs will hurt the most
disadvantaged members of your community because the warrants will
not be readily tradeable and it is unclear whether banks will be
prepared to hold them for the interest payment on redemption
(that is, cash them).

3. You can easily eliminate this disadvantage by making the IOUs
eligible for payment of Californian state taxes and fines. This
one change to your current plan will allow you to create your own
sovereign currency and the IOUs will become widely accepted
within the community. Even those who are not being directly paid
in IOUs would be happy to hold them because they would realise
they could extinguish their tax obligations to your government
using them.

4. You could then use these IOUs forever for state purchases as a
substitute for USD and avoid issuing more debt.

5. You will also be able to directly employ the 2.1 million
Californian citizens who are currently unemployed with the IOUs
and start using this idle labour to advance public purpose via
community development projects.

If you need any further advice on this please do not hesitate to
contact me. best wishes, Bill.

William F. Mitchell
Professor of Economics
Director, Centre of Full Employment and Equity
University of Newcastle
New South Wales, Australia
---

JCT: So let's check his article on the wisdom of making the IOUs
tradable.
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=3145&cpage=1#comment-714

California IOUs are not currency . but they could be!

I seem to be stuck in the US at the moment - blog-wise. I can
assure you I escaped their shores at the weekend and am now
freezing in Newcastle, NSW. But I still have reading left over
from hanging around US book shops last week. One story that is
very interesting at the moment is the plan by the Californian
State Government to begin issuing IOUs (reserved warrants)
because it has "run out of cash". As far as I can work out the
IOUs will not become a second currency (alongside the USD) but
one simple extra announcement by the State would be enough to
allow California to be sovereign in their IOUs. What do you
suppose that extra complication might be?...

the increasing deficit has to be "funded" because a state
government does face a revenue constraint. It has to increase
taxes, cut spending or increase its borrowing (state debt
issuance) to resolve the fiscal deterioration... Trying to
resolve the burgeoning Californian state deficit by increasing
taxes and cutting spending at the height of the worst downturn
the economy has faced in years is madness. It will almost
certainly make matters worse...

Which brings us to the story at hand. The State of California,
the worlds 8th largest economy plans to begin issuing IOUs -
formally known as registered warrants - to the tune of $3 billion
from July 2, to fund its commitments to various suppliers and
contractors to government; university students; and welfare and
pension recipients...

While two of the major banks that operate in California - the
Bank of America and Wells Fargo - have said they are uncertain as
to whether they will accept the state-issued IOUs in return for
cash, they have an incentive to do so because they can then earn
the interest payable once the redemption date is up.

Who will get the IOUs? The most disadvantaged - stupid! No other
group would tolerate being treated in this way.

The State Controllers Office has some analysis of how the IOU
system will work and who will be provided with them in lieu of
cash. they also provide a FAQ page for the warrants system. We
learn that the largest proportion of the IOUs will go to the aged
($590 million), the unemployed ($495 million), and the disabled
($363 million).

There are two interesting points to note from FAQ page. First,
there is no guarantee of convertibility into cash. I say this
even though the state will (if it has enough cash) accept them on
October 1 for cash. But there is no stipulation that they can be
traded in the meantime as if they were cash.

Second, there is no provision that a Californian resident can pay
their state taxes using the warrants as contra payments. In other
words, the warrants are not currency.

If the State of California, announced that it would accept these
IOU vouchers (their face value in $US) as legitimate vehicles to
liquidate one's tax obligations to the State then the situation
changes dramatically. To circulate the vouchers, all State
employees would receive some (or all) of their pay in the IOUs
(bits of paper or via electronic transfer into special voucher
banks), which they could then use to pay their taxes. If all
Californian citizens could similarly extinguish their tax
obligations using these vouchers then there would be a
generalised demand for them, which means that State employees
would be able to spend the IOUs in shops as they would the $US.

The State of California would have no financial constraint in the
IOU vouchers. It would simply spend them (pay its workers) and
collect the taxes later as people handed them back to satisfy
their legal obligations. Imposing the tax obligation (in
vouchers) creates a demand for them and allows them to circulate
as a "currency".

Soon enough, the banking system would develop IOU Voucher
Accounts and related products. In this way, the State of
California could more easily maintain its level of services
without imposing huge costs on the disadvantaged which they are
forcing to accept the IOUs. The State could also expand public
employment to attenuate the labour market impacts of the
recession.

There might be some reluctance to hold the vouchers. In general
terms whether Californians would desire to demand the IOUs would
depend on how enforceable the tax obligations are. The State of
California could probably enforce the tax obligations and allow
them to be extinguished using vouchers. This would be sufficient
to generate a viable demand for the IOUs as an operating
currency. I am not considering any constitutional issues here.
Just the logical point.

If the state had have decreed that any resident could extinguish
their tax obligations using the warrants then they would become
more broadly accepted as an alternative currency in California
and the disadvantage that those citizens face who will be forced
to accept them in lieu of cash payments would be considerably
reduced (or eliminated entirely)...

But the bottom line is that the IOU plan in its current form will
further hurt the poor. The simple act of allowing them to be used
for tax purposes would reduce this disadvantage considerably...

We should start a petition to request the State does make the IOU
"tax-empowered" and then we would be able to satisfy our
curiosity. It is a perfect chance to empirically demonstrate (and
validate) some modern money concepts. bill
---

JCT: More sites leading up to the big event:

090701 California: The haves and the have-nots
090701 California IOUs may be difficult to cash
090701 Out of Cash, California Turns to IOUs
090701 Schwarzenegger declares fiscal emergency in California
090701 Schwarzenegger orders third furlough day, proposes new cuts
090702 How the Terminator Can Save the World (Scott Baker)
090702 Bank of America to accept California IOUs
090702 California IOUs could make it harder for local government to
borrow
090702 California IOUs have Value If Applied to State Obligations
090702 Why one state agency won't accept California IOUs
090702 No IOUs for California Politicians, They're Still Getting Cash
090703 Are California IOUs Constitutional?
090703 As Goes California (Argentine Patacons)

http://www.grandinite.com/2009/07/03/as-goes-california/#comment-5752

As Goes California...
It might be useful to look up the phrase Patacon, which refers to
the IOUs issued by the largest province in Argentina, just four
months before it collapsed in 2001.

The Patacon (officially called Letra de Tesoreria para
Cancelacion de Obligaciones de la Provincia de Buenos Aires) was
a bond issued by the government of the province of Buenos Aires,
Argentina, during 2001. The patacones were used to pay government
bills, including state employees' salaries during a period when
the economic crisis caused regular currency (Argentine pesos) to
be scarce. Patacones then circulated in the economy in much the
same way as pesos.

First issued during the peso/U.S. dollar convertibility regime,
just like other complementary currency Patacones could be
attractive due to a revenue scheduled for payment in 2003 in
pesos (practically equivalent to dollars). When the
convertibility was abandoned amid fears of hyperinflation, the
attractive of this revenue practically disappeared. The basis for
the acceptability of complementary currency shifted to their use
to pay taxes.

However, the value of Patacones became eroded as the series "B"
was issued because as a way to put pressure on the Government to
cancel a large debt, the company that printed them eliminated
many safety features deemed too expensive, thus making them
easier to counterfeit.

JCT: They didn't print enough to pay to make them right!!

Also, the revenue of series "B" was scheduled for payment just in
2006. The economic importance of Buenos Aires province ensured
the acceptability of Patacones because there were plenty of large
companies that found use for them as payment of provincial
charges. Patacones were accepted outside the Buenos Aires
province and eventually circulated (albeit informally) in border
areas of neighboring countries.

090704 Schwarzenegger Calls Emergency, More Furloughs
090706 California Prints Its Own Currency - A Satire?

http://lionel-murasy.blogspot.com/2009/07/california-prints-its-own-currency.htm\
l?showComment=1246975546056#c6194834697672319702

Monday, July 6, 2009
California Prints Its Own Currency - A Satire?

Not to shabby a job of what can possibly be around the corner.

Satire or not, the idea of a complimentary currency may be just
the ticket to help us out.

Suppose a college student in the need of financial aid for
community college, in lieu of state grants or loans, the state
issues a currency commensurate to the amount of hours the student
volunteers to care for the elderly.

Two birds, one stone. In essence the state acts as a
trader/broker between two markets.

090706 Wanted on Craigslist: California IOUs
090707 Trading of California IOUs ca
090707 Trading of California IOUs catches regulators' eyes
090707 Banks Reject California IOUs
090707 Banks accept California IOUs for deposit
090707 State Lawmakers back bill to make IOUs legal tender

JCT: And finally, we read:
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jul/07/bn07iou-state-bill/

State lawmakers back bill to make IOUs legal tender
By James P. Sweeney
U-T Sacramento Bureau
July 07 2009 7:02 p.m.

SACRAMENTO - Republicans and Democrats alike embraced legislation
Tuesday that would make California IOUs legal tender for all
taxes, fees and other payments owed to the state.

JCT: Making California chips valuable to everyone everywhere.

A unanimous vote in the Assembly Business and Professions
Committee and support from the Democratic majority launched the
bill on what could be a quick trip to the governor's desk.
"I think we can get this done in the next two or three weeks if
the majority wants to push it hard," Assemblyman Joel Anderson,
R-La Mesa, said after the hearing on his measure, AB 1506.
Until last week, the bill had been sitting idle in the committee
with little apparent support and no date set for an initial
hearing. Before Tuesday, it also was unclear how Democrats viewed
the idea.
But with the state issuing nearly $230 million worth of IOUs
since Thursday and no budget agreement in sight, a prominent
Democrat expressed strong support for Anderson's bill and asked
to be listed as a co-author.
"It is the recipients of these IOUs who are being punished for
the actions of the governor and others who have gotten us into
this situation," said Los Angeles Assemblyman John Perez, a
member of the Democratic leadership. "I appreciate what you're
attempting to do here."
Tuesday's vote sent the bill to the Appropriations Committee, the
last stop before the Assembly floor. The measure would then go to
the Senate. A spokesman for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said the
administration has no position yet on the proposal.
The state started issuing IOUs, formally known as registered
warrants, on Thursday after lawmakers and the governor failed to
agree on a package of spending cuts and other measures to close a
budget deficit that since has grown to $26.3 billion.
There was little, if any, visible progress toward a new budget
accord Tuesday, with no negotiating sessions scheduled between
the governor and legislative leaders.
While California is not broke, dwindling cash flow will push the
general fund into the red and leave the state unable to pay all
of its bills later this month, Controller John Chiang has warned.
To manage available cash and make sure mandatory payments can be
met, Chiang started issuing IOUs to vendors, individuals, local
governments and others on Thursday.
Anderson's legislation simply declares the state must accept its
IOUs as payment for any taxes, fees or other payments owed to the
state. The state already accepts its IOUs for payment of income
taxes.

JCT: Wow, I didn't know they had such good chips available all
along.

"Some companies have fleets of vehicles and they pay all the
motor vehicle fees." Anderson said. "We have some companies that
have to report to 14 different agencies and each one of those
agencies has fees.
"To expect them to pay the fees and the taxes, when they have yet
to receive cash payment from the state, is outrageous."
As he addressed the committee, Anderson produced a two-inch stack
of support letters for the bill. Among those were letters from
Santee School District and the San Diego County Medical Society.
"This bill would save many businesses and individuals from severe
financial hardship," wrote Dr. Stuart A. Cohen, president of the
8,000-member medical society.
Anderson's measure is one of three pending proposals to redefine
how IOUs can be used. They could no longer be used to pay income
tax refunds under SB 23 and AB 775 would prohibit the use of IOUs
for payments to local governments.

JCT: Now that we read that state lawmakers back bill to make
California IOUs legal tender, it's great that Argentina people
were smart enough to avoid the tent-cities catastrophe and
California people are now going to follow their example.
I'll take back every joke I ever made about Girlieman Governor
Musclehead if he engineers the California state currency
lifeboat.

Nice to see others pushing them in the same direction.
See my full reports on these articles at my
http://youtube.com/kingofthepaupers channel

JCT: Marc Paquette wrote:

>Can a lower court judge overrule the Ontario Court of Appeal's
decision John?

JCT: The "stare decisis" (already decided) doctrine says judges
SHOULD follow precedents from above to avoid contradicting
themselves. But a judge MUST do what is just.

>Are there any risks that Justice Tulloch could be chastised by
the feds if he rules in Terry's favor.. and declare marijuana
prohibition unknown to law for all Canadians... as stated in the
Parker 2000 decision if the feds wouldn't comply to their
decision by the end of their "1" year deadline?

JCT: He cannot be chastised, he can only be overturned by his
bosses above and laughed at if he's wrong. But will he be
overturned if they were always wrong and he is now right? Though
a minority opinion is not always right, a right opinion on a
novel problem always starts with a minority of one.

Let's say we and he are all wrong and
- Alan Young's Hitzig Court did have the power to resurrect a
struck-down law despite there being no statute saying they can
because Crown Greg Smith convinced Judge Gehan Edward in the
Nielsens's case that they wouldn't have if they couldn't have so
they can and Judge Gehan sent them to their persecution;

- Justice Chapnik had the power to set aside equivalent Justice
Pitt's extending the Ontario Court of Appeal's criminal exemption
for Terry Parker as a civil default judgment;

- The Criminal Code doesn't have to be reprinted because the
Court of Appeal says they'll remember which laws therein have
been struck down and which have not.

- Finding the one doctor in 60 Ontario doctors is not an
unreasonable ordeal to put sick and dying people through;

- The O'Leary stay pending appeal continues to stay the Krieger
invalidation after the appeal is dismissed even if the
Sfetkopoulos stay died with the appeal at the Supreme Court.

Then a wrong Justice Tulloch would be overturned, ridiculed made
a laughingstock by the Court of Appeal.

But let's say we and he are all right and

- Alan Young's Hitzig court did not have the power to resurrect a
struck-down law because there is no statute saying they can and
Judge Edward was wrong to bow down to Crown Greg Smith's argument
that the higher court wouldn't have if they couldn't have so they
can and be forced to let the Nielsens be persecuted;

- Justice Pitt could only be overturned by 3 judges upon appeal
and Justice Chapnik did not have power in civil court to set
aside a criminal court remedy by an equivalent judge;

- The Criminal Code does have to be reprinted when courts strike
down bad laws because the strict interpretation of statutes
doctrine says the printed laws should be precise and courts can't
be left to remember which laws therein have been struck down and
which have not.

- Finding the one doctor in 60 Ontario doctors is too onerous an
ordeal to put sick and dying people through when all doctors
should have been compelled to treat;

- The O'Leary stay pending appeal of the Krieger invalidation
died when the appeal was dismissed like the Sfetkopoulos stay
died when the appeal was dismissed.

Then the right Justice Tulloch would be overturned but with no
laughter because he's right unless they simply restate why their
wrong reasons again. And we'd get to appeal his right decision
they couldn't make fun of to the top.

But also, a right Justice Tulloch might be affirmed by the higher
5-judge panel in over-turning the 3-judge Hitzig panel.

So a judge should always do what is just regardless of precedent
but the stare decisis gives the ball-less ones the Nuremberg out
that they were only following higher orders in letting 4
known Canadians a day die from epileptic seizures that could have
been prevented had it not been for their decision supporting the
prohibition that prevented them having their remedy.

Remember, every judge who had the power to save them and did not
has a 4*t K-slab where t= number of days.

Justices Doherty, Goudge and Simmons have 4*(over 2000 days in 6
years) for 8,000 dead epileptics they had the chance to save but
did not. Har har har har.

I always told them they were dealing with a question of genocide
of the sick and how are they going to feel when they realize
their grandchildren will probably have the math to understand
what The Engineer was telling them but chose not to believe.

And by then, we'll be able to dig up the names of the 8000
epileptics so their families will be able to personally find out
who were the three judges, Doherty, Goudge, Simmons, who, despite
the Engineer's math, let their loved ones die. Har har har har


Derek Francisco wrote:

> Yes it sure is John, he did like your argument! I'm sure he
also has some family members who are sick and use mj too!! ;)


JCT: Never thought of that but sure, he probably does have family
who will end up suffering if he denies them nature's best herbal
medication. Hope there are already some who would benefit.

Ken Surgent wrote:

> He has to follow precedent

JCT: Good precedent and bad precedent?

> no matter what,

JCT: Or what? Is someone going to put him in jail if he doesn't
follow stare decisis? Fire him? What? Nothing, that's what. Only
the quest for righteousness compels him to follow precedent. It's
a doctrine, not a law. The worst that can happen if he doesn't is
having his arguments rebutted and overturned and his being
laughed at. But no judge has to follow a bad precedent though we
agree it's a wise habit to follow a good precedent.

> or Terry has to appeal.

JCT: Or the Crown will have to appeal. Better the judge goes with
righteousness and not worry about who is going to be appealing.

> But now the Beren case is going to the SCC.

JCT: Beren, same as Sfetkopoulos, same as Hitzig, all finding
flaws in the MMAR exemption and not linking to the CDSA
prohibition. How many times do we expect to have flaws declared
in the exemption before it's failure becomes final?

> Kirk said they will cross appeal the access issue, which would
prolly address not enough doctors participating and no DIN for
cannabis.

JCT: So even if Justice Tulloch doesn't knock the doctors odds,
there's another shot.

> My doctor stated that he does not know the dosage or what can
be treated with cannabis. The bottom line is, that no clinical
testing has been done to issue a DIN. The government is at fault
and causing an unconstitutional condition by not funding the
research. Another barrier to access. JMO Ken

JCT: Whatever the reason that doctors are deterred from
participation, they should be compelled to participate if their
patient decides they want to.

So there seems to be only good news happening. Even the Insite
case may end up of help. But it all boils down to Judge Tulloch
goes with the "must obey higher orders, good or bad" or whether
he goes with whatever is righteous.

JCT: Next week's Time Magazine dated Monday, Jul. 13, 2009

http://205.188.238.181/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1908421,00.html

Monday, Jul. 13, 2009
Local Currencies
By Judith D. Schwartz

JDS: With local economies flailing, communities across the U.S. are
trying to drum up more action on Main Street. "Buy Local"
campaigns are one way to go. But many towns--from Ojai, Calif.,
to Greensboro, N.C.--are considering going a step further and
printing money that can only be spent locally.

JCT: It's like saying that because Ceasar's Palace chips can only
be spent in Ceasar's Palace, they can't be used anywhere else. Of
course, lots of people would accept them without living in Las
Vegas. So too, Ithaca Hours may only be "spent" in Ithaca stores
but they're still useful money to all their neighbors. So people
who say that local currencies can only be used locally have no
understanding of valuable negotiable IOUs.

JDS: Issuing an alternative currency is perfectly legal, as long
as it is treated as taxable income and consists of paper bills
rather than coins.

JCT: Don't make your coins look like US currency and it's okay. I
see nothing wrong with a copper dollar chip, even a plastic
dollar chip from your local casino supply house. Besides, the US
doesn't even have a dollar coin.

JDS: In the U.S., where local currencies were popular during the
Depression, the biggest alterna-cash system is in Massachusetts'
Berkshire County. Go to one of several banks there, hand a teller
$95 and get back $100 worth of BerkShares, a nice little discount
designed to reel in users.

JCT: Berkshares are the cash-buy-in community currency model,
like a casino bank. No chips issued if no one has any cash.

JDS: BerkShares are printed on special paper (by a local
business, naturally--a subsidiary of Crane Paper Co., which has
been printing U.S. greenbacks since 1879). And since the
program's inception in 2006, more than $2.5 million in BerkShares
have circulated through bakeries, vets' offices and some 400
other businesses that choose to accept the colorful bills, which
feature famous former Berkshire residents, including W.E.B. Du
Bois and Norman Rockwell.

JCT: The point is that though they can cash their chips out at
the 5% cash-out loss, they can also spend their chips locally
without incurring any 5% cash-out fee.

JDS: What's the point of all this pretty, community-printed
currency?

JCT: The benefit is quite obvious to people who have no credit.

JDS: Money spent at locally owned companies tends to create more
business for local suppliers, accountants, etc. The New Economics
Foundation (NEF), a London think tank, compared the effects of
purchasing produce at a supermarket and at a farmer's market and
found that twice the money stayed in a community when folks
bought locally. A study of Grand Rapids, Mich., released last
fall by consulting firm Civic Economics, concluded that a 10%
shift in market share from chain stores to independents would
yield 1,600 new jobs and pump $137 million into the area. "Money
is like blood," says NEF researcher David Boyle. Local purchases
recirculate it, but patronize mega-chains or online retailers, he
says, and "it flows out like a wound."

JCT: It's true that it raises market share for local stores as
long as big chain stores do not accept them. But what happens
when WalMart wises up? Actually, there'll be enough for all
because no one's paying any interest.

JDS: Interest in cash alternatives has skyrocketed in recent
months (BerkShares.org logged nearly 42,000 hits a day in April)
as the recession has encouraged more innovation. For example, a
Vermont business association is getting ready to launch a
statewide cashless trading network.

JCT: Good stuff. Means we'll be able to trade accommodations
throughout the state. Wait until they find out what they can do
with a state-wide time-trading network.

JDS: Ithaca, N.Y., which has the nation's longest-running
independent currency, agreed in June to let people start using
the 18-year-old bills to buy transit passes.

JCT: This is the time-buy-in model which allows people with no
money to use. Just like a casino bank accepts both assets (cash,
cars, checks, etc.) or markers (IOUs owed), so too, Ithaca could
also offer to take in cash buy-ins too. And Berkshares could
start lending them out to people too. If a casino can issue chips
based on both asset and IOU, why can't community currency banks
too?

JDS: But how hard is it to manage and maintain these trade
boosters? Ed Collom, an associate professor of sociology at the
University of Southern Maine, has studied volunteer-run programs
like Ithaca's and found that about 80% failed, chiefly because of
administrative burnout.

JCT: Guys like Ed Collom are useful in scaring people away from
these local currency lifeboats since 80% of them fail. Hearing
him say that the local Guelph LETS failed leaves people with the
impression that someone lost something, right? But a LETS can't
"fail" in that way. It's not like a tractor that can break down,
it's a set of accounts that stay undead forever.
Let's say our very small Local Employment Trading System is very
small, say 5 of us. After an initial spurt of activity, trade
falls off and our books show that Adam owes 1 Hour, Bob owes 2
Hours, Charlie owes 3 Hours while David is owed 4 Hours and Ed is
owed 2 Hours. Now try to explain how that system of accounts can
fail? It can't. Sure, nothing may happen to change those IOUs but
that doesn't mean anyone has lost anything. Ed could still call
on another and try to spend his IOUs, giving one of the
"Committed" a chance to redeem his debt of honor. (No interest)
And finally, someday, the UNILETS Resolution will be engineered
and those accounts IOUs will be spendable globally when everyone
is connected. So those accounts can never die, until one of them
dies, and in that case, the amount can be shared over the whole
database.
So whenever you hear a so-called "community currency supporter"
focusing on how these dinky (sabotaged) systems have failed, you
know they're playing right into the bankers' hands by raising
doubt over joining an only-20% successful lifeboat.

JDS: That's why many newer models, like BerkShares, are now set
up as nonprofits, complete with administrative support.

JCT: So dinky LETSystems don't fail, they idle, but having cash
(through interest on buy-ins deposited) has to help which is why
I advocate running both cash and time buy-ins for tokens.

JDS: Beyond spurring local trade, alternative currencies build
awareness about the effect of consumers' choices. "It has started
a conversation: Why local currency? Why buy local?" says Oliver
Dudok van Heel, who last fall helped launch the Lewes pound to
help a British town become more self-sustainable.

JCT: Why spend gas shipping our tomatoes to them and shipping
their tomatoes to us? Wood, wine, beef, etc.

JDS: Local currency can generate customer loyalty, but not every
business feels as though it can offer a discount like the one
built into BerkShares.

JCT: If you can't afford to lose the discount by cashing out,
I've already explained you can just spend it at full value. I
guess the businesses who don't see how to avoid the discount
won't be able to participate and should be the first ones to go
under, as the dummies should be.

JDS: "They just aren't viable for us," says Beth Parsons, whose
family owns a grocery store in Lenox, Mass. But as a consumer,
she likes the idea. Parsons recently drove to a nearby town to
buy some shoes instead of getting them online. Afterward, she
says, she passed a BerkShares sign "at the bank and thought, 'Oh,
I should've bought BerkShare bucks to save money on these.'"

JCT: Of she could have been smart enough to accept some in her
store! Har har har har.

Isn't it incredible how much disinformation is being peddled by
these community currency representatives?

And it's not as if they haven't heard John The Banking Systems
Engineer railing against the failings they keep in their systems.
Actually, Ithaca Hours use using their chips optimally, except
for being a dinky toy by only trusting their members with with a
paltry 4 Hours each, hardly enough currency to do anything big at
all.

And the third model, Timedollars, is the worst. Even though I
demonstrated that people could and should be able to command
different earning rates, especially when physical tokens let
people determine those rates themselves in a free marker, Edgar
Cahn's crew decided to keep their credits computerized so they
could impose an egalitarian wage independent of skill and demand
which has proven to be the downfall of all previous such "dog-
walkers earn the same as dentists"  networks that have no
dentists. Ithaca, with a paper currency and free market, has
dentists, Timedollars probably not.

So they covered the three basic chip models, Berkshares cash buy-
in, Ithaca Hours dinky time-buy-in and the Timedollars Wages
Police making sure that no one better gets what they're worth.

Now keep in mind that the controllers of these systems have all
been told by the Banking Systems Engineer how to remedy the
malfunctions in their models and that they've chosen to continue
operating with the flaws leaves the only conclusion that they're
morons or they're bankster moles.
And you can bet I believe that while there were few LETS
experiments going on, the banksters would have had them
infiltrated with people to cause dissension and disinterest so Ed
Collom can tell the world that 80% of these account books "fail."