TURMEL: Crown's submission on Prohibition Resurrection Order

From: John Turmel (bc726_at_FreeNet.Carleton.CA)
Date: 08/12/04 

Date: 12 Aug 2004 04:49:55 GMT

JCT: I'm trying to have the Order say:

Applicants want CDSA invalidity on Terry Parker Day.
Court orders CDSA invalidity on Terry Parker Day;
Court fixes MMAR to revalidate CDSA.

The Crown want it the final Order to say:

Asked for CDSA invalidity on Terry Parker Day.
Application dismissed.

After my written submissions, here's the Crown's response:

Department of Justice
Canada
Ontario Regional Office
Exchange Tower, 130 King St. W. #3400
Toronto M5X 1K6
Tel: 416-973-9638 Fax: 416-952-0298

Our File: 2-493443-1

August 09 2004
 
VIA HAND DELIVERY

ATTENTION: Sandra Theroulde
Deputy Registrar and Supervisor of Court Operations
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Osgoode Hall
130 Queen St. W.
Toronto Ontario M5H 2N5

CR: Dear Madam:

Re: Turmel and Paquette v. HMQ
    Court File No: C39740

Further to our meeting of July 30 2004 in your office,
please accept this letter as Her Majesty the Queen's
("Crown") written submissions regarding the draft order in
the above-mentioned matter. It is the Crown's position that
the draft order in the Turmel matter is not appropriate, and
that the Crown's version of the draft order should be issued
and entered. The Crown's version of the draft order is
attached for your reference.

Background

On March 20 2003, Mr. Turmel and Paquette filed a Notice of
Appeal appealing the January 9 2003 decision of Lederman J.
in Hitzig v. Canada [2003] O.J. No.12; (2003) 171
C.C.C.(3d)18. In the Notice of Appeal, Mr. Turmel and
Paquette sought the following relief:

A) declaring that the prohibition on the possession of
marijuana (cannabis) in the Controlled Drugs and Substances
Act (CDSA) 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.

The Turmel-Paquette appeal was heard together with the
related appeals in Court file numbers C39532 ("Hitzig") and
C39738 ("Parker") on July 29, 30, and 31 2003 in the Court
of Appeal for Ontario.

The Parker matter dealt with the same issues as the Turmel-
Paquette appeal. Mr. Parker's Notice of Appeal was the same
as the Turmel-Paquette Notice of Appeal and also sought a
declaration that the prohibition of possession of marijuana
is a "genocidal violation" of the applicant's right to life.
The Court of Appeal disposed of both matters in the same
manner in its decision.

I note that Mr. Parker was present at the Appointment to
Settle the Order on July 30 2004, however, Mr. Parker did
not settle his order at that same appointment.

JCT: Why waste a second $90 for him to ask for the same
wording. If I win it, then they'll consent to Parker's
without need for a $90 hearing. I hope.

CR: In the Hitzig appeal, the applicants sought a
declaration that the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations
(MMAR) were inconsistent with s.7 of the Charter of Rights
(Charter).

The Turmel-Paquette appeal was very different from the
Hitzig appeal

JCT: Gee, in most other Crown presentations, they kept
saying that the Turmel-Paquette appeal was the very similar
to the Hitzig case. Her own buddy Chris Leafloor argued that
they were so similar that they should be consolidated.
Without that consolidation, we wouldn't be having this
problem of determining which portions of the Hitzig decision
that applied to us should be applied to us.

CR: as it involved different legal issues. The Turmel-
Paquette appeal only dealt with the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act (CDSA)

JCT: But Justice Lederman dismissed Turmel's case because
the MMAR didn't not apply to a non-sick guy. Why didn't they
warn the judge he was wrong when they knew our case involved
the CDSA, not the MMAR.

CR: and whether the prohibition of the possession of
marijuana was a genocidal violation of the applicants right
to life. The Turmel-Paquette appeal did not deal with the
MMAR.

JCT: But Justice Lederman kept saying that our case dealt
with the MMAR like the Hitzig case did. Lederman repeated
four of five times how Turmel was challenging the MMAR. And
the Crown, knowing that, let the old guy keep on with his
misinformed opinions. Imagine, the Crown is now telling us
they knew Lederman was wrong all along and they didn't set
the old guy straight. That's the problem when dealing with
an old mentally incompetent judiciary. No one has the guts
to correct them when they contradict themselves.

CR: On October 7 2003, the Court of Appeal released its
decisions in all three appeals. The Court's reasons in the
Turmel-Paquette decision are found paragraphs 177 to 183.
The operative paragraphs for the purpose of these
submissions are found at paragraph 183 of the court's
reasons:

JCT: Actually, they're found earlier. But that's already
been explained and her answer was to repeat without
explanation.

CR: "Thus it is unnecessary to examine either argument
further. In summary, we reject both of them and would
dismiss the Turmel, Parker, and Paquette appeals."

JCT: Since most of their argument was dealt with in the
Hitzig portion, there's no reason to repeat it for the
Turmel-Paquette case? Not unless you realize the Crown are
going to argue it doesn't apply to us too. Besides, if our
cases, as the Crown says, are very similar, why shouldn't
the relief the Hitzig's got not also refer to us?

CR: Correspondence regarding the Draft Orders

[.... For ease of reference, I have enclosed a copy of all
correspondence sent to Mr. Turmel in this matter.

Crown's position

The Crown's position is that the draft order prepared by Mr.
Turmel does not conform with the order in the Court of
Appeal's decision of the Turmel-Paquette matter. The order
in this matter must reflect the Turmel-Paquette decision,
which is found at paragraphs 177 through 183.

JCT: Only paragraphs 177 to 183 apply to us. Why, because
Vanita Goela says so. I already pointed out her mere opinion
is not good enough.

CR: The Turmel-Paquette and Parker matters both dealt with
the issue of whether or not the prohibition of the
possession of marihuana in the CDSA is a genocidal violation
of the applicants' right to life.

The decision in the Hitzig matter found at paragraphs 8 to
176 addresses the legality of the MMAR and thus addresses
matters that are different than the Turmel-Paquette
decision.

JCT: So how come the decision on the law being dead on Terry
Parker Day is in the Hitzig portion when they didn't ask for
it, we did? She failed to respond to that point. If they
can't rebut, they restate so the court can simply "fail to
see" what I'm talking about. Still, nice to hear the Crown
contradict their previous statements that they're the same.

CR: It is our respectful submission that the draft order
prepared by the Crown accurately reflects the order of the
Court of Appeal in Court file number C39740 and that this
draft order should be issued and entered by the Court.

On a final note, we have observed that Mr. Turmel has
brought an Appointment to Settle the Order. However, the
order relates not only to himself, but also to Mr. Paquette.
Mr. Paquette has not been involved throughout this process
of settling the order. This may be a significant point, as
Mr. Paquette filed his own factum in the appeal. It is
possible that Mr. Paquette may not be satisfied with the
final order. We raise this issue as it may be a matter of
concern for your office.
Yours truly,
Vanita Goela
CC: John Turmel, Marc Paquette

JCT: Actually, I have an email from Marc saying he consents
to the wording I asked for. So I faxed it off this morning
to the Deputy-Registrar.

John C. Turmel, B. Eng.
8-37 Colborne E.
Brantford, N3T 2G3
Tel/Fax: 519-753-0645
Email: turmel@ncf.ca

BY FAX:

ATTENTION: Sandra Theroulde
Deputy Registrar and Supervisor of Court Operations
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Osgoode Hall
130 Queen St. W.
Toronto Ontario M5H 2N5

Re: Turmel and Paquette v. HMQ
    Court File No: C39740

Dear Madam:

In the Crown's written representations, it was mentioned
that my co-applicant Marc Paquette may not have consented to
the wording suggested.

Appended is the email from Mr. Paquette indicating that
approval.

Yours truly,
John C. Turmel

Appendix:

>Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 07:50:30 -0400 (EDT)
>From: paquettemarc@yahoo.com (Marc Paquette)
>Subject: Consent for Crown
>To: TURMEL@ncf.ca

I consent to the form and content of the Order dated October
7th, 2003 proposed by John C. Turmel.
Marc Paquette
A-162 Atlantic Avenue
Hawkesbury, Ontario
K6A 1V5
Tel: 613-636-2177
====

JCT: So now it's in the hands of the panel of judges. If
they don't put the gist in the order, I'll punish them every
step of the way. I will include both the Court's official
"A" order which does not include the gist of the objections in
my Application to the Supreme Court with my "B" Order that
does include the gist we're talking about.

And every time I speak of the issue, I'll point out they can
find it in the "B" Order and not in the "A" Order. They
can't win. They can only come across ashamed of what they
wrote and chicken.

Imagine, Justice Matheson says that gist of the case is the
resurrection of the law and there's won't be any order
anywhere actually stating what they ordered. Won't that be a
trove of funny lines. 

--
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
Quantcast