TURMEL: Justice Doherty won't sign Resurrection Order
From: John Turmel (bc726_at_FreeNet.Carleton.CA)
Date: 09/17/04
- Next message: Some Guy: "Re: Refuting supply-side economics"
- Previous message: Mike Combs: "Re: A COMPLETELY NEW Economic System COMING SOON WORLDWIDE"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 17 Sep 2004 18:38:46 GMT
JCT: A judgment includes all the reasons for the final
decision. An Order is what it all boils down to. For
instance, in Parker's 2000 Declaration of Invalidity, it had
a judgment of over 100 pages and a 1 page Order that read:
"the prohibition in s.4(1) is invalid."
Our application to declare the prohibition unknown to law
because the MMAR had failed to save the CDSA prohibition was
consolidated with the Hitzig case to fix the MMAR to save
the CDSA prohibition even if too late.
Creating these weaker cover cases seems to be a common
occurrence. Alan Young had managed to pair up the "for fun"
Clay case with the "for medicine" Parker case but Parker
winning and Clay case losing ruined their play. Parker made
the news though no one had heard about it until it won. We
did all hear about Alan Young's Clay case, the weaker one,
in the media. Heck, my Abolitionist Party was the only
political party in Canada to contribute to the Clay legal
defence by buying some cannabis bonds that would be worth an
ounce of grass when Young had made cannabis legal. Har har
har har.
Just like Young grafted his Clay case on Terry Parker I,
similarly, once Terry had started his application for his
Terry Parker II "unknown to law" declaration, Alan Young
started up his companion Hitzig cover case which he and the
Crown worked hard to have linked together. So, as Terry
fought to declare the law dead for everyone because the MMAR
had failed to protect the sick, Alan fought to fix the MMAR
for the sick and resurrect the CDSA prohibition against
everyone else. And he says he was successful. How much
clearer can Judas Young's intent have been than his own
words claiming he won the resurrection of the prohibition
against Marijuana after Parker had had it declared unknown
from the Oct 8 Globe & Mail article "Marijuana ruling a
victory for the ill" by Kirk Makin:
"The deficiencies in the law have been cleared up by the
court. As of 9am this morning, the free season on marijuana
is over... While the ruling helps the ill, it is a defeat
for marijuana reformers."
JCT: Thanks to Alan Young, the free season on marijuana is
over. In the CP article "Ontario Court reinstates pot
possession law," by Gillian Livingstone, lawyer Alan Young
said outside court:
"That little gap that we had in Ontario where the law did
not exist and police could not arrest you for smoking is
over... The law did not exist in the past several months
because of problems with with the medical program," Young
explained. "Tuesday, the court fixed the problems with the
medical program, so if the medical program is operating
constitutionally, then the criminal law operates
constitutionally." Alan Young.
JCT: Does this sound like a guy who's working for the
abolitionists or for the prohibitionists? No one had any
idea that the effect Young's Hitzig decision was to ruin
Parker killing of the law and bringing it back to life until
we kept forcing the Crown to state the true effect of Alan
Young's Hitzig decision, a boon for the prohibitionists.
And that is the gist of the Hitzig, Parker, Turmel-Paquette
consolidated cases. Parker and Turmel-Paquette got the law
declared dead since Terry Parker Day and medpot champion
Alan Young got the law declared alive. Ooops.
Of course, no one wants to admit what the court did because
the court abused its authority shamelessly. But for the
ruling of Judges Doherty, Goudge and Simmons JJ.A., 1500
epileptics would probably not have died. What irony that the
people who presided over these epileptic mega-deaths get to
be called "Justice." I'd think being called "Injustices
Doherty, Goudge and Simmons would better suit the facts.
Those judges are responsible for the death of Don Appleby
who would never have been killed if they hadn't fooled
everyone into thinking they had the power to keep epilepsy
medicine illegal. Ha ha on the dying, they didn't know the
Doherty Court's ban on their medicine was an ultra vires
over-stepping of their authority and forsook their medicine
at the judges' command and died.
Other than Nazi judges, I can't think of too many judges
given the chance to cause so many deaths as this robed triad
of murderers. Sure the word may seem harsh but they were
warned by a scientist of the patients who would die if the
anti-seizure medicine was not legalised and yet, they did
their best to fool those soon-to-be-dead epileptics that
their medicine was still illegal. Hope they got well-paid
for the forever notoriety they merit by their genocidal
decision.
But nowhere was there an Order from the Hitzig or Parker or
Turmel-Paquette judgment stating that the court resurrected
the law. Why not? Is Doherty J. too ashamed to admit openly
what he ordered? Or is this an out for us.
Judge Matheson in PEI and Judge Edward in Ontario both
pointed out that the gist of the Hitzig ruling was in the
section where the court said the CDSA prohibition was in
force and effect again. Because I want to appeal the
resurrection Order, not the 100 page resurrection judgment,
I asked Doherty J. that the court acknowledge the gist of
what they did.
The Crown wants our Order to simply read "application for
the Terry Parker Day declaration dismissed" even though the
Terry Parker Day application was granted declaring the
prohibition unknown to law since Terry Parker Day. But it
wasn't mentioned in our case. It was only mentioned in the
Windsor J.P. case and the Hitzig case.
You can find the result of our application, but not in our
case. This is Doherty J.'s attempt to forestall our appeals.
If he won't admit what they did and hides it in other cases,
maybe they think we won't be able to appeal. If he won't
state the result of our case in our case but only in other
cases where the result had an effect, we'll just have to
point out that the result of our case is in the other two
cases and argue that the oldsters on the bench must be quite
senile to have not only gotten their cases confused but to
have insisted on hearing them backwards first. This is not
necessarily incompetence and ineptness but could also be
corruption and malevolence. How many times does a judge get
to save a thousand people and consciously let them die?
These judges did.
Of course, maybe with his low-tech education, the judge
really did think my plea for him to save 4 epileptics a day
was "ranting," the judge's his word. Maybe, despite all my
urgings for him to save those threatened epileptics, he let
them die accidentally. Oops again. How many readers out
there think that those judges killed those epileptics
accidentally and how many people think they out-and-out knew
what they were doing when they ruled that they had the power
to make the recently legalised anti-seizure medicine illegal
again? How many would find the judges guilty of the genocide
of the epileptics Terry was trying to save?
Don't mind my ranting. This is what I'd be saying when we
get Doherty, Goudge and Simmons in the docket on a mass
murder charge. I'd love to be the prosecutor. Maybe I'll
have my chance when they try to get into Heaven. Or at least
attend the upper court hearing and watch God's justice done
to these miscreants.
Anyway, the recent proceeding was to get the judges to sign
the Resurrection Order which came out of their Resurrection
Judgment. But this is the response I got by fax yesterday:
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Osgoode Hall
130 Queen St. W.
Toronto Ontario M5H 2N5
September 16 2004
To: John C. Turmel,
8-37 Colborne E. Brantford
And To: Department of Justice
Ontario Regional Office
Exchange Tower, 130 King St. W. #3400
Toronto M5X 1K6
Tel: 416-973-9638 Fax: 416-952-0298
Attention: Vanita Goela - Counsel - Public Law Section
And to: Marc Paquette,
A-162 Atlantic, Hawkesbury
Re: Turmel and Paquette v. Her Majesty the Queen
Court File No: C39740
Justice Doherty has now given his instructions regarding the
settlement of the order on the above-noted file.
He has approved the order as settled by me, and previously
faxed to all parties on August 13 2004. I have therefore
issued and entered the order as instructed and will mail a
copy to all parties. The original order will be forwarded to
the Department of Justice.
Please contact the office if you have any additional
questions
Yours truly,
Sandra Theroulde
Deputy Registrar and Supervisor of Court Operations
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Tel/fax: 416-327-6017/5032
JCT: So this is the Order
Court of Appeal File No. 39740
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
The Honourable Mr. Justice Doherty )
)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Goudge ) TUESDAY THE 7TH
) DAY OF OCTOBER
The Honourable Madam Justice Simmons ) 2003
)
BETWEEN:
JOHN C. TURMEL AND J.J. MARC PAQUETTE
Applicants
(Appellants and Respondents in Cross-Appeal)
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
(Respondent in appeal and Cross-Appellant)
ORDER
THIS APPEAL by John C. Turmel and J.J. Marc Paquette, from
the judgment of Mr. Justice Lederman dated January 9 2003,
for (A) A declaration 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, AND THIS CROSS-APPEAL by the Respondent Her
Majesty the Queen, for an order setting aside the judgment
of Mr. Justice Lederman, dated January 9 2003 and replacing
it with a judgment dismissing the applicants' applications,
were 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
the submissions of John C. Turmel, appearing in person, and
counsel for Her Majesty the Queen,
1. THIS COURT ORDERS that the appeal of John C. Turmel and
J.J. Marc Paquette is hereby dismissed.
2. THIS COURT FOR that the cross-appeal of Her Majesty the
Queen is hereby dismissed.
3. THIS COURT makes no order as to costs.
Sandra Theroulde
Deputy-Registrar
Court of Appeal for Ontario
JCT: So that's the Order that's supposed to give the gist of
the Parker, Turmel-Paquette, Hitzig et al case.
We asked the Court of Appeal to replace Lederman J.'s
dismissal of our application for a declaration that the CDSA
prohibition was dead as of Terry Parker Day with a
declaration that the CDSA prohibition was dead as of Terry
Parker Day.
Rather than try to get our appeal dismissed, the Crown
needed to get Alan Young's Hitzig case involved and so they
not only RESPONDED to our appeal seeming to keep the
Lederman dismissal in place but they CROSS-APPEALED seeking
to replace the Lederman dismissal with the Court of Appeal's
dismissal. See the point? There was no need to replace
Lederman's dismissal with the higher court's dismissal. They
only had to beat my appeal. So filing a cross-appeal to
replace a dismissal with a dismissal wasn't done without
covert purpose. And that purpose was to allow Alan Young to
get his nose into the appeal, then get the consolidation and
then the replacement of the Parker Style of Cause with the
Hitzig style of cause. No kidding.
But don't forget, Alan Young's been working Crown Attorney
Lara Speirs since the Wakeford case got torpedoed in the
Court of Appeal for being in the wrong court. Ergo, Wrong
Way Young. Who also helped the Crown challenge the Pitt
criminal jurisdiction decision in the wrong civil court.
Young and the Crown were happy with the Lederman ruling that
said the CDSA was still not dead as long as they fixed the
MMAR in 6 months, which they blew too. It was when we filed
our appeals that they needed a say to get the Judas cover
case hooked in. So the Crown cross-appealed to set aside the
judgment of Lederman J. dismissing the applicants'
applications and replacing it with a judgment dismissing the
applicants' applications. Har har har har.
It effect its purpose, getting Young's Hitzig people
involved so they could then take over the media function and
shut out the Parker argument was accomplished. So why leave
it in our Order when I didn't want it? It only makes them
look stupid. It only makes the Court look not smart.
Alan Young's Hitzig involvement which permitted the
Resurrection Order in our Parker and Turmel-Paquette cases
could only be effected by the Crown cross-appealing to
replace the dismissal with the dismissal. Young and Burstein
had not appealed. Only we had appealed. Wasn't it lucky for
the Crown to have cross-appealed to drag the Hitzigs in so
Young and Burstein could get the MMAR fixed? Or not? Think
about that! Was the Crown just lucky that by cross-appealing
to replace the dismissal with a dismissal, they got to
include the Oops Champion of the Medpot movement? Did the
Crown know that including Young's MMAR challenge in the
Parker CDSA challenge would torpedo Parker's win? Were they
that smart? Was Judas Young in on it? Neat eh?
Isn't it incredible how little out-of-the-ordinary things
they had to do to fight off on-target shots can then be used
to show the collusion between Young's kennel of legal
beagles and the Crown? Unless Lara's so convinced of Young's
ineptitude after she beat him in Wakeford for being in the
wrong court that she just told them get him somehow dragged
in, even with a redundant cross-appeal, and old Maxwell
"Not-so-smart" Young can be counted on to klutz up the
court.
Think about the coordination between Lara "Bonnie" Speirs
and Alan "Clyde" Young as they appeared together before 3
judges, Chapnik, Feldman, McIsaac, trying to tie his case to
Terry's. When have the Crown Respondent ever cross-appealed
to replace a dismissal with a dismissal when opposing the
appeal does the same thing. Just oppose the appeal and the
dismissal stands. No cross-appeal necessary? Once they knew
we had filed in the appellate court, there was no way for
Young to get involved anymore. Only by the Crown cross-
appealing. But they had no grounds. So they sought to
replace the dismissal with the dismissal.
And now the Order dismisses the Crown's attempt to
substitute the Court of Appeal's dismissal for the Lederman
dismissal of our motion to declare the law dead on Terry
Parker Day. But they did declare the law dead on Terry
Parker Day. Just not in our case but in the J.P. and Hitzig
cases. Har har har.
Still, the collusion between the Crown and Alan Young to get
his Hitzig case dragged up with Parker's appeal, to sabotage
it, to supplant Parker's request for the death of the CDSA
by Young's request for the resurrection of the MMAR and then
the CDSA. And there he was on the national media telling us
that the party was over without telling us it's what he had
asked for.
So, Judge Doherty refused to put his name to his dirty deed.
Must be real proud, I guess. But he left in the silly part
about the court's decision on replacing the dismissal with
the dismissal. Surely they put a lot of thought into that
one.
So the judge won't sign it and admit they resurrected a
statute. So, like all the judges who have referred to the
Hitzig case so far by pointing at the paragraph in the
judgment rather than the Order where that gist paragraph
should be, there'll be no mention of what really happened in
our Order and we'll have to keep referring to the paragraph
in the judgment. After explaining how we had asked to have
the gist paragraph included in the Order which was refused.
And the court refused to sign the direct Order proclaiming
that the prohibition had been resurrected, then it's only an
opinion, opinion, just another bad opinion, but it certainly
can't be an Order to resurrect the law or they would have
signed it so when asked to sign it so. Especially being
alerted that that paragraph was going to be subject of the
appeal. To leave that paragraph out of the Order has to mean
that it's not official.
Just like their opinion that Superior Court Justice Pitt did
not have the jurisdiction to suspend service requirements
before granting such criminal jurisdiction remedy which
clearly demonstrates that they have forgotten the early
basic section on the powers of the Superior Court that may
at any time suspend service regulations in the name of
justice. If they can have their basics all wrong, it surely
gives them an incompetence defence. They did not Order that
the Pitt decision was overturned, they only opined wrongly
that the Superior Courts do not have the power to dispense
with service requirements, and they did not Order that the
Rosenberg Court of Appeal declaration of invalidity was
overturned, they only opined, again, wrong that the
Rosenberg Court of Appeal's declaration of invalidity had
been negated by their resurrection of the MMAR at Alan
Young's instigation.
If they can opine wrongly about Pitt's criminal code
protection of Parker having been set aside by Chapnik's as a
civil default judgment, they have the right to be wrong
about whether their actions resurrected the corpse of the
CDSA left after the Rosenberg killing. As long as they don't
turn their wrong opinions into wrong orders, it shouldn't be
any problem. The fact they won't turn that important opinion
into an Order has to say something about the value of the
opinion. Judge Edward realized they had over-ruled the
Rosenberg court when he asked the Crown if the Doherty Court
had the power to overrule another equal Court of Appeal.
So that will be one ground of appeal. If they can be
incompetent in knowing their own powers with respect to
dispensing with service criteria, they can surely be
incompetent in knowing their powers with respect to
Parliament too.
Of course, never getting right that Turmel, the healthy guy
wasn't challenging the access regulations for the sick and
so had no standing, that Turmel the healthy guy was
challenging the prohibition regulations for the healthy and
the sick and so does have standing, that's another great
point of incompetence. Filing their responses to our Terry
Parker Day applications in the wrong cases is another great
argument that these low-techs are just not competent to be
presiding over anything in a high-tech world.
Who knows if the fact that they won't put it in the Order
won't help me? If we had not asked for the gist of the
resurrection in the Order, the Crowns could say that the
intent of the judgment was to resurrect the law. But when
it's pointed out that Judge Doherty refused to sign the
Order opining there had been a resurrection, it can then be
argued that that is not what the intent of the judgment
should be! If the court really wanted to resurrect the law,
why didn't they put it in the order when they were asked?
Because they refused to Order the resurrection when they
were asked, there can be the inference that it was not their
intent. The resurrection was just another wrong opinion from
a court that insisted on hearing everything backward.
So Judge Doherty wouldn't put in our Order the operations
they performed on our CDSA appeal like they did for the
Hitzig MMAR appeal. Think about that. And they put the part
we'd find objectionable in the Hitzig case knowing they
wouldn't be fighting it and we, the ones who would object to
not getting what we had asked for (rather getting it and
then losing it) and now we don't have it in our Order when
we go to appeal! Remember, only we can appeal. The Crown
won. Alan Young won. We got the "dismissed" that is our
ticket to the top. That we have to dig out what happened to
our case in two other cases just makes the story line that
much more fun.
And remember, these are the guys who know that the courts
below them convicted 100,000 people wrongly even if the one
case they could help, J.P., was an appeal from acquittal.
Maybe Doherty, Goudge, and Simmons JJ.A. didn't deduce the
100,000 people who were wrongfully convicted on their watch.
I lost my Aitken appeal because I'm supposed to trust their
efficiency at knowing which of the written laws really don't
apply and which do right after they make 100,000 errors?
So now, the only real moves left that count, no matter the
chaff cases being paraded in the public media, are going to
be the two challenges to the Resurrection and Remember
Judgments at the Supreme Court of Canada. Now that it's
official that the Resurrection Order doesn't say a word
about the resurrection, it's time to settle in a write out
the two applications for leave to appeal.
Then I'm going to have 4 months to hook as many cases as I
can onto the outcomes to ensure they'll not be able to avoid
the issues at the top. Counting at least three probable
anti-prohibition judges there so far, the odds of getting
none on my 3-judge panel is (6/9)*(5/8)*(4/7) = 76%, 1:3 and
the odds of getting at least one 3:1. Only 1/4 of the time
will I get one of the pro-cannabis judges on my panel.
The only way to ensure that they let it in, and I will make
a request that the appeal be expedited, like these cases the
Crown has kept calling of national importance were by
expedited by the Ontario Court of Appeal, is for there to be
a whole slew of cases dependent on the outcomes by then. I
hope to be filing within a week. The Crown has a month to
reply. The Court usually responds within 2-3 months. So we
should know by the end of the year whether leave to appeal
the Resurrection and Remember Judgments will be granted.
Again, if there can be dozens, yea, hundreds, even
thousands of cases adjourned pending resolution of the
appeals against the Resurrection Judgment and the Judgment
refusing to accept all prohibitions sections are repealed
to, there will be no way for them to not let them in.
So yes, because the "Remember without marijuana deleted from
the schedule" appeal applies to all charges, and because the
Resurrection Order is at the basis of the renewed
prohibition, it means that every case in Canada should be
adjourned pending the resolution of whether the law is
resurrected or not and whether it applies to all sections or
not.
Neat that tackling the big issues puts this in the position
of solving the problems for everyone all at the same time.
Anyway, once the applications are filed, then hooking up
pending cases will be the next imperative. Then again, every
new person charged will have the chance to ask to have their
charges put off until the infamous Parliament Hill Bust
Appeal is heard.
Imagine, the whole country counting on the little old non-
lawyer engineer. Har har har har. The government doesn't
have a chance. They come and go. The Engineer never quits.
Quitters never win. Winners never quit.
-- 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: Some Guy: "Re: Refuting supply-side economics"
- Previous message: Mike Combs: "Re: A COMPLETELY NEW Economic System COMING SOON WORLDWIDE"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
