TURMEL: Stavert backs Lederman Appeal Order wording
From: John Turmel (bc726_at_FreeNet.Carleton.CA)
Date: 07/23/04
- Next message: Kent Paul Dolan: "Re: SSN entitlements, US (still): Population and longevity"
- Previous message: Johnny 5: "Re: SSN entitlements, US (still): Population and longevity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 23 Jul 2004 03:35:13 GMT
John C. Turmel, B. Eng.
8-37 Colborne E. Brantford, N3T 2G3
Tel: 519-753-0645
Email: turmel@ncf.ca
Friday July 23 2004
Vanita Goela
Legal Counsel, Public Law Section
Ontario Regional Office, Department of Justice
Exchange Tower, 130 King St. W. #3400, Toronto M5X 1K6
Tel: 416-973-0392 Fax: 416-952-0298
Email: VGoela@JUSTICE.GC.CA
Re: Parker v. HMQ; Turmel-Paquette v HMQ;
Dear Ms. Goela :
I have received no reply to my last letter about the wording
of the Lederman Appeal order we will need for our leave
applications to the Supreme Court of Canada. I explained
that I wanted the wording in the order to reflect the issue
we were appealing against: "the marihuana prohibition in s.
4 is no longer inconsistent with the provisions of the
Constitution and prohibition is now no longer invalid, but
is of full force and effect."
P.E.I. Justice Matheson in the Queen v. Stavert also notes
this is the gist of the Court of Appeal decision:
"[16] The effect of the Hitzig decision from the Ontario
Court of Appeal is to create a constitutionally valid
medical exemption for marihuana users to s.4 of the CDSA,
thus making s.4 of the CDSA constitutionally valid and in
full force and effect. Having found that the MMAR had not
created a constitutionally valid medical exemption to s.4 by
July 31 2001, the Parker declaration was effective and there
was no prohibition against possession of marijuana under s.4
of the CDSA from July 31 2001 to Oct 2003."
http://www.canlii.org/pe/cas/pesctd/2003/2003pesctd85.html
I find the reticence of the Crown to include the prime issue
in Order objectionable. It seems pretty clear to Justice
Matheson that the point of the decision was that "the
marihuana prohibition in s. 4 is no longer inconsistent with
the provisions of the Constitution and prohibition is now no
longer invalid, but is of full force and effect."
JCT: I suggested using the actual words of the Ontario Court
of Appeal for the Order:
1. THIS COURT ORDERS...rendering the possession prohibition
in s.4 of the CDSA no longer inconsistent with the
provisions of the Constitution and prohibition is now no
longer invalid, but is of full force and effect.
JCT: If you don't approve of the way the Ontario Court of
Appeal put it, we could also substitute the wording of
Justice Matheson:
1. THIS COURT ORDERS...which renders a constitutionally
valid medical exemption for marihuana users to s.4 of the
CDSA, thus making s.4 of the CDSA constitutionally valid and
in full force and effect."
JCT: Anyway, Justice Matheson notes that the gist of the
decision is the re-enactment of the prohibition which should
be stated in the final Order. I can understand why Alan
Young and Paul Burstein would leave out the rebirth of the
law in their Hitzig Order but your suggested Order shouldn't
leave out what both Matheson J. and I feel is the gist of
the decision.
I'm not looking forward to having to waste my time
travelling to Toronto to explain to the Registrar why I want
the words on our order to reflect the same thing Justice
Matheson says is the effect of the court's decision. But I
need that Order soon and you're forcing me waste my time and
money. Even if the Registrar doesn't see the gist of the
case either, I'll use the court's 100-page decision with
only two lines highlighted for the Supreme Court and you can
bet I'll find some way to make the waste of time reflect on
you as the *** of all the jokes.
You have been treated civilly by me so far but I have to
keep in mind that you're one of the Crowns responsible for
wrongly advising the police to keep busting tens of
thousands of families while you were wrong between July 31
2001 and Oct 7 2003 (they say). Though there'll be nothing
personal in my challenging your motives for obstinacy, it
will be as vicious as you all deserve for what your efforts
have wrought and you know what I can do to you in debate.
Sure, I know wrongly busting all those people was not what
you wanted to do? No one wanted to improperly bust 100,000
people. But you were on the team that wrongly advised the
police to keep busting them. And you now know you all were
wrong. And now, you all, who should be penitent for your
errors, are going to be obstinate?
Give me the Order with the gist of the issue stated on it so
I can leave you Toronto Court of Appeal Crowns alone and
take up with the Ottawa Supreme Court Crowns.
Finally, I was joking about substituting PEI Justice
Matheson's interpretation over the actual words of our three
Ontario Appellate judges who said them. I'm going for the
actual words they used though I'll be sure to have the
Stavert ruling to help me deride you before the Registrar
for not seeing the same gist as me and the judge.
No more nice guy. Time to pass this along to Ottawa. Move on
it now.
John Turmel
P.S. If you prefer, I am asking Marc Paquette to consent to
the form and content of an Order with both our names in the
Style of Cause. The following two appended Orders would be
acceptable and will be proffered to the Registrar for
approval.
Cc: paquettemarc@hotmail.com
APPENDIX A: PARKER ORDER
-------------------------------
Court File No: C39738
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
The Honourable Mr. Justice Doherty )
)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Goudge )
)
The Honourable Madam Justice Simmons )
)
) Tuesday Oct 7 2003
)
BETWEEN:
TERRANCE PARKER
Applicant
(Appellant)
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
(Respondent)
ORDER
THIS APPEAL by Terrance Parker of the judgment of Mr.
Justice Lederman dated January 9 2003 which dismissed the
Appellant's application for an order A) declaring that the
prohibition on the possession of marijuana in the Controlled
Drugs and Substances Act is of no force and effect since Aug
1 2001 or, in the alternative, B) extending the
constitutional exemption granted by the Ontario Court of
Appeal until such time as the Government has complied with
the ruling of the Ontario Court of Appeal to provide
Applicant with non-illusory access to the only medicine that
is 100% effective in his and many more Epilepsy cases, was
heard on July 29,30,31 2003 at Osgoode Hall and judgment
having been reserved until this day,
ON READING the material filed by the parties and on hearing
the submissions of the parties,
1. THIS COURT ORDERS that subsection 4(2)(c), section 7,
subsection 34(2), subsection 41(b) and section 54 of the
Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, S.O.R./2001-227 are of
no force and effect which 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 no longer inconsistent with the provisions of the
Constitution and prohibition is now no longer invalid, but
is of full force and effect.
2. THIS COURT ORDERS that the appeal of Terrance Parker is hereby
dismissed without costs.
_________________________________
(Signature of Judge or Registrar)
------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX B: TURMEL-PAQUETTE ORDER
-------------------------------
Court File No. 39740
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
The Honourable Mr. Justice Doherty )
)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Goudge )
)
The Honourable Madam Justice Simmons )
)
) Tuesday Oct 7 2003
)
BETWEEN:
JOHN C. TURMEL AND J.J. MARC PAQUETTE
Applicants
(Appellants)
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
(Respondent)
ORDER
THIS APPEAL by John C. Turmel and J.J. Marc Paquette for a
declaration A) that the prohibition on the possession of
marijuana in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is a
genocidal violation of Applicants' S.7 Right to Life in
accordance with the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal
in R. v. Parker and has been of no force and effect since
Aug. 1 2001; or in the alternative B) granting Applicants
personal judicial exemptions was heard on July 29, 30, and
31 2003 at Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen Street West, Toronto, and
judgment having been reserved until this day,
ON READING the material filed by the parties and on hearing
counsel for Her Majesty the Queen, the submissions of John
C. Turmel, appearing in person, the submissions of Marc
Paquette in writing,
1. THIS COURT ORDERS that subsection 4(2)(c), section 7,
subsection 34(2), subsection 41(b) and section 54 of the
Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, S.O.R./2001-227 are of
no force and effect which 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 no longer inconsistent with the provisions of the
Constitution and prohibition is now no longer invalid, but
is of full force and effect.
2. THIS COURT ORDERS that the appeal of John C. Turmel and
J.J. Marc Paquette is hereby dismissed without costs.
_________________________________
(Signature of Judge or Registrar)
------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX C: TURMEL ORDER
-------------------------------
Court File No. 39740
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
The Honourable Mr. Justice Doherty )
)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Goudge )
)
The Honourable Madam Justice Simmons )
)
) Tuesday Oct 7 2003
)
BETWEEN:
JOHN C. TURMEL
Applicant
(Appellant)
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
(Respondent)
ORDER
THIS APPEAL by John C. Turmel for a declaration A) that the
prohibition on the possession of marijuana in the Controlled
Drugs and Substances Act is a genocidal violation of
Applicants' S.7 Right to Life in accordance with the
decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Parker and
has been of no force and effect since Aug. 1 2001; or in the
alternative B) granting Applicant a personal judicial
exemption was heard on July 29, 30, and 31 2003 at Osgoode
Hall, 130 Queen Street West, Toronto, and judgment having
been reserved until this day,
ON READING the material filed by the parties and on hearing
counsel for Her Majesty the Queen, the submissions of John
C. Turmel, appearing in person,
1. THIS COURT ORDERS that subsection 4(2)(c), section 7,
subsection 34(2), subsection 41(b) and section 54 of the
Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, S.O.R./2001-227 are of
no force and effect which 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 no longer inconsistent with the provisions of the
Constitution and prohibition is now no longer invalid, but
is of full force and effect.
2. THIS COURT ORDERS that the appeal of John C. Turmel is
hereby dismissed without costs.
_________________________________
(Signature of Judge or Registrar)
JCT: Marc, cut out the Order with both our names, chop it
into two pages, print it out in 2 pages, write "approved as
to form and content" somewhere on each page and then sign
under it and then fax it to me. I hope there's no
disagreement that the only point of objection is that the
court can't bring the two-year-repealed prohibition back to
life.
-- Abolitionist Slave Leader John C."The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel for UNILETS interest-free time-based currency in U.N. resolution C6 to Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel 519-753-0645 USENET: can.politics
- Next message: Kent Paul Dolan: "Re: SSN entitlements, US (still): Population and longevity"
- Previous message: Johnny 5: "Re: SSN entitlements, US (still): Population and longevity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
