TURMEL: Turmel-Drouin-Martin Consolidated Marijuana Factum

John Turmel · science forum Guru Joined: 07 May 2005 Posts: 424

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
- and -
File No. C44587
JOHN C. TURMEL
- and -
File No. C44683
PIERRE DROUIN
- and -
File No. C44684
REAL MARTIN
Appellants
(Applicants)

APPELLANTS' CONSOLIDATED FACTUM

OVERVIEW

1. Epilepsy.ca cites 4 deaths every day from among the
400,000 known epileptics and yet, after 5 years, there are
only just over 1000 Health Canada exemptees for all
illnesses in all of Canada, only a fraction of which are
from Canada's epileptic community. The vast majority are
unexempted, including Terrance Parker, after doctors
refusing to satisfy the onerous Health Canada hurdles set
before them to get their prescriptions filled. 7200
epileptics died in the 5 years it took for Health Canada to
exempt 1000 Canadians. The MMAR has failed and still fails
to offer a constitutionally acceptable medical exemption
which creates a genocide among Canada's epileptics. No
epileptic should be without a cannabis joint. No epileptic
should have been, should be, left unexempted.

2. The three Oct 7 2003 Ontario Court of Appeal decisions in
R. v. Turmel, R. v. J.P., and Hitzig v. HMQ are all being
challenged herein.

3. On July 31 2000, the Ontario Court of Appeal Ordered "the
marijuana prohibition in s.4 of the CDSA to be invalid."

4. On Oct 7 2003, upon the Parker/Turmel-Paquette
application that the Parker I Court of Appeal's declaration
of invalidity on the prohibition in s.4(1) of the CDSA had
taken effect on Aug. 1, 2001, the Court of Appeal did rule
that the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations had failed to
save the s.4(1) prohibition by July 31 2001.

5. The Court also say they amended the Marijuana Medical
Access Regulations two years after the Parker invalidation
of s.4(1) and opined it re-enacted the old prohibition's
legislation so that "prohibition is now no longer invalid,
but is of full force and effect" with no help from
Parliament.

6. On Sep 16 2004, Justice Doherty refused to include the
words "prohibition is now no longer invalid, but is of full
force and effect" in the Order relegating the court's
resurrection of a repealed statute to mere opinion, not
Order.
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/jcmnom.txt
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/jcmno2.txt

7. The consolidated Parker/Hitzig/Turmel-Paquette "Hitzig,"
R. v. J.P., and and R. v. Turmel decisions were of such
national importance that they were immediately inscribed in
the 2005 Martin's Criminal Code of Canada. Lower courts are
now enforcing the new court-enacted legislation as though it
had been enacted by Parliament. Courts Only Abrogate. Only
Parliament Legislates.

8. On Dec 8 2003, the Crown stayed all 4000 s.4(1)
possession charges still pending since July 31 2001 when the
Parker invalidation took effect until Oct 7 2003 when the
Court of Appeal amended the MMAR to correct its deficiencies
and the Hitzig resurrection of the statute repealed pursuant
to S.2(2) of the Interpretation Act took effect.

9. The Court failed to order the expunging of the
convictions of the 100,000 Canadians who were convicted
while the law was invalid and do not know and the Crown also
failed resulting in 100,000 victims of this even bigger
Parker Scandal.

10. The even biggest Krieger Scandal is that the Crown
should have obeyed the Alberta Court of Appeal and stopped
s.7(1) and s.4(1) prosecutions of the next 150,000 innocent
Canadians but did not on the basis of a provincial stay out
of a functus officio.

PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS

11. On Dec 10 1997, Ontario Provincial Judge Sheppard stays
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.
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/sheppard.htm

12. The Crown appealed against the ruling on the S.4(1)
possession remedy, not the S.7(1) cultivation remedy.

13. On July 31 2000 in R. v. Parker, Ontario Court of Appeal
Justices Rosenberg, Catzman and Charron 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. 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.
The court further wrote they would have invalidated the
cultivation prohibition had the Crown appealed Parker's win
on Section 7 too. How failing to appeal against Parker's win
on S.7 turns his win into a loss is just another anomaly in
a less than logical legal system.
App.1: 2000 Jul 31 Parker Ont.C.A. Order on CDSA S.4 repeal
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2000//july/parker.htm
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/2003/2003onca10430.html

14. On Dec. 11 2000 in R. v. Krieger, Alberta Justice Acton
took care of that omission by agreeing with the analysis in
Parker and declaring the prohibition on cultivation of
marijuana in s.7, (and by implication possession in s.4) to
be invalid. She suspended her ruling for 1 year.
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/1998-2003/qb/Criminal/2000/2000abqb1012.pdf

15. 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 which
the Court of Appeal later ruled to have failed to forestall
the Parker Court's invalidation of the s.4(1) prohibition.

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

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

18. 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 extended
the suspension "until further order of the court."
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/oleary.pdf

19. 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."
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/pittorde.jpg

20. On Apr 19 2002, Justice Pitt's extension of Parker's
exemption granted by the Court of Appeal under its criminal
jurisdiction was set aside as a civil default judgment by
Justice Sandra Chapnik. The application to declare the
section invalid since 2001 was adjourned.

21. On Sep 19 & 20 and Oct 18, 2002, applications by Terry
Parker, John Turmel and Marc Paquette to have the CDSA
prohibition system declared "unknown to law" since Terry
Parker Day were heard at the same time as Alan Young's
"Hitzig et al" application to have the MMAR permission
system declared unconstitutional once it had failed to work
on time.

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

23. Once the Court of Appeal for Alberta became functus
officio after issuing its final further Order, that court's
interim O'Leary Order staying the Acton decision
invalidation of the prohibitions in Section 7(1) and, by
implication, Section 4(1) of the CDSA also lapsed. The only
court with power to stay the Acton invalidation pending
leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada rested only
with that court of last that was not yet functus officio.

24. 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."

25. On Nov 16 2005, Crown Attorney Scott Couper testified in
R. v. Cornelssen that on December 4 2002, upon having the
Crown's appeal against the decision of Acton J. to
invalidate the s.7(1) prohibition dismissed, he was going to
ask for a S.65.1(1) Supreme Court stay of Acton's
invalidation pending their application for leave to appeal
to the Supreme Court of Canada but then did not.

26. Couper testified he was deterred from seeking such a
stay by the Defence counsel Adriano Iovinelli moving the
Court of Appeal to have the O'Leary stay lifted. Even though
the court declined to entertain a the silly request to lift
the stay which had just become functus officio, the Crown
then did not ask for its own legitimate stay pursuant to
S.65.1(1) of the Supreme Court of Canada Act.
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/cornqtrs.txt

27. 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

28. Both Crown Couper and Defence Iovinelli attested that
the Court of Appeal had said the functus officio O'Leary
stay still had to be lifted after a hearing with evidence to
show how the Government had complied with Acton's Order.
Yet, in its decision, the court points out: "Nor are we
satisfied that the trial judge imposed a positive obligation
on the Crown." Considering they pointed out now obligations
had been imposed by Acton, it seems contradictory to believe
they said there would have to be a hearing to deal with the
government's compliance with the Acton order. So, the Acton
invalidations had to have taken effect on December 4 2002
when the Court of Appeal became functus officio and a
Supreme Court stay was not obtained.
Applicant's Appeal Book: Supplementary Authority 6

29. 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 that
since the Parker order took effect after July 31 2001, it
rendered s.4 of no force and effect as it applied to
marihuana and, absent a re-enactment of that section, there
was no crime of possession of marihuana in Ontario from July
31 2001 forward pursuant to the Interpretation Act: "For the
purposes of this Act, an enactment that has expired, lapsed,
or otherwise ceased to have effect is deemed to have been
repealed."

30. The authority to issue a declaration of invalidity comes
from s.52 of the Constitution Act:
"S.52(1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of
Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions
of the constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency,
of no force and effect."
http://cannabislink.ca/legal/windsordecision.htm

31. On Jan 9 2003, Lederman J. ruled in Hitzig, as had
PittJ. earlier, that the MMAR was had failed to comply with
the court's ruling and suspended his ruling 6 months but
dismissed the applications of Parker, Turmel and Paquette
seeking a declaration that the Ontario Court of Appeal's
decision in Parker had taken effect on Aug. 1 2001, Terry
Parker Day. Applicants Parker, Turmel, Paquette appealed.
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/2003/2003onca10584.html

32. 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

33. 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.

34. With no new legislation to replace that struck down by
the Krieger court, the very next day, 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."

35. Despite Scott Couper admitting he was going to seek a
Supreme Court stay, once it had not been obtained, Frankel's
only choice was to argue that the functus officio stay was
still in effect. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians have
been busted based on this lower court stay still being not
functus officio like the court it emanated from. Of course,
once the Court of Appeal of Alberta became functus officio,
O'Leary's stay lapsed and, as Frankel warned, there was "no
prohibition whatsoever on the cultivation of marihuana in
the province." And the country.
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegcm.txt

36. On May 16 2003, Superior Court Justice Rogin dismissed
the Crown appeal against the quashing in J.P. holding that
since Parliament had not re-enacted the prohibition in s.4
of the CDSA after it was declared to be of no force and
effect in Parker, the prohibition against possession of
marihuana was deemed repealed after July 31 2001.
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/2003/2003onsc10765.html

37. On June 23 2003, Carthy J.A. dismissed the Crown's
motion in Parker et al (including Hitzig) for an extension
of time to appeal the Lederman repeal of the Marijuana
Medical Access Regulations (MMAR). On July 9 2003, the
Lederman suspension expired and the MMAR became of no force
or effect. No one noticed. On Aug 1 2003, the Court of
Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal in Parker et al
(including Hitzig) against Carthy J.A.'s refusal to extend
the Lederman suspension of the repeal of the MMAR on July 9
2003.
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/2003/2003onca10445.html

38. 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.
http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2003/03/p03_0328.htm

39. On Oct 7 2003, Ontario Court of Appeal Justices Doherty,
Goudge, and Simmons dismissed the appeals of Terry Parker,
John Turmel and Marc Paquette to declare "the marijuana
prohibition in s.4 of no force or effect since Terry Parker
Day Aug. 1 2001.

40. The Court then ruled in R. v. J.P. and that on April 12
2002,
[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.

41. The Hitzig Court then amended the MMAR by striking down
five (5) cancerous sections and opining 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.

[170] There will immediately be a constitutionally valid
exemption in effect and the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 of
the CDSA will immediately be constitutionally valid and of
full force and effect. In R. v. Parker, supra, this court
declared the prohibition invalid as of July 31, 2001 if by
that date the Government had not enacted a constitutionally
sound medical exemption. Our decision in this case confirms
that it did not do so. Hence the marihuana prohibition in s.
4 has been of no force or effect since July 31, 2001. Since
the July 8, 2003 regulation did not address the eligibility
deficiency, that alone could not have cured the problem.
However, our order has the result of constitutionalizing the
medical exemption created by the Government. As a result,
the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 is no longer inconsistent
with the provisions of the Constitution. Although Parliament
may subsequently choose to change it, that prohibition is
now no longer invalid, but is of full force and effect.
Those who establish medical need are simply exempted from
it. This consequence removes the cloud of uncertainty from
the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 of the CDSA - a cloud
which we were told in argument has created very considerable
confusion for courts and law enforcement agencies alike."
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/october/hitzigC39532.htm

42. The reason used by the J.P. and Hitzig Court to rebuke
all those provincial judges who were ruled that once the
section had become of no force and effect, it was deemed to
be repealed pursuant to S.2(2) of Parliament's
Interpretation Act was explained in R. v. J.P. where Ontario
Court of Appeal Justices Doherty, Goudge and Simmons found
that s.4 need not be "re-enacted" after becoming invalid,
that the defect does not have to be addressed by Parliament,
that section 2(2) of the Interpretation Act does not apply:
"[5] On July 31 2000, in R. v. Parker, this court held that
the prohibition against possession of marihuana in S.4 of
the CDSA was unconstitutional, absent a constitutionally
acceptable medical exemption to that prohibition."

43. The Court of Appeal in "Parker I" did not rule that "the
prohibition in s.4 is invalid absent a constitutionally
acceptable medical exemption." Applicant's App.1 shows the
Order of the Court of Appeal dated July 31 2000 which
clearly states that the prohibition in s.4 "is invalid."
There is no "absent a constitutionally acceptable medical
exemption" condition. These phrases are not in the original
Order but were added before being misquoted by the second
Court of Appeal which would allow the law to be present or
absent, on or off, rather than be deemed repealed.

44. "[29] The Superior Court judge treated this court's
order in Parker as the equivalent of a Parliamentary repeal
of s.4 of the CDSA as it applied to marijuana. "We do not
share this interpretation."

45. The Court does not share the interpretation of
Parliament's Interpretation Act? The judiciary take an oath
to obey Parliament's statutes and this court may not order
them to interpret statutes not according to Parliament's
direction but rather according to the court's.

46. "[31] The court in Parker, supra, declared that the
marihuana prohibition in s. 4 was inconsistent with the
Charter and consequently of no force or effect absent an
adequate medical exemption."
"In making the declaration, the court did to not and could
not repeal or otherwise alter the terms or the statute. The
court could only declare the constitutionally offensive part
of the legislation to be of no force or effect.

47. The Interpretation Act states that when a court declares
a statute to be of no force and effect, it is to be deemed
repealed, not absent until a judicial fix.

48. "[32] By bringing forward the MMAR, the government
altered the scope of the possession prohibition in s.4 of
the CDSA. After the MMAR came into force, the question
therefore became whether the prohibition against possession
of marihuana as modified by the MMAR was constitutional. If
it was, then the possession prohibition was in force. If the
MMAR did not solve the constitutional problem, then the
possession prohibition, even as modified by the MMAR, was of
no force or effect.
"[33] There was no need to amend or re-enact s. 4 of the
CDSA to address the constitutional problem in Parker. That
problem arose from the absence of a constitutionally
adequate medical exemption. As our order in Hitzig
demonstrates, the prohibition against possession of
marihuana in s. 4 is in force when there is a
constitutionally acceptable medical exemption in force."
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/october/jpC40043.htm

49. The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that "absent a
constitutionally acceptable MMAR medical exemption," the
prohibition is turned off and with a constitutionally
acceptable medical exemption, the prohibition is turned on.
Therefore, if the statute can be turned on and off, it can't
be repealed and the Parliament's Interpretation Act is to be
ignored.

50. Though the Court of Appeal rejected the argument in J.P.
that the MMAR legislation could not be amended by
regulation, the court still acquitted J.P. because the
legislation thus amended by regulation had still not worked
to save the CDSA prohibition on time by Terry Parker Day.

51. The judiciary have accepted that the Ontario Court
resurrected a prohibition that had been deemed repealed as
if they all forgot how government and the courts work. On
Oct 23 2003 in R. v. Stavert, Justice Jaqueline Matheson
accepted that the Ontario court had resurrected the
prohibition in s.4 of the CDSA for Parliament writing:
"[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."
http://www.canlii.org/pe/cas/pesctd/2003/2003pesctd85.html

52. On Dec 8 2003, the Crown stayed all 4000 s.4(1)
possession charges still pending between July 31 2001 and
Oct 7 2003, from Terry Parker Invalidation Day to Hitzig
Resurrection Day.
App.9: 2003 Dec 08 Turmel stays 4000 since Parker Day

53. On December 23 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada
Bulletin of Proceedings of the Krieger decision states:
"29569 HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. GRANT WAYNE KRIEGER
(Crim) (Alta.)
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Major and Fish JJ.
The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the
Court of Appeal of Alberta (Calgary), Numbers 01-00011-A and
01-00288-0A, dated March 18 2003, is dismissed."
App.10: Supreme Court of Canada Bulletin Dec 23 2003

54. The Supreme Court does not note any stay of Judge
Acton's repeal of marihuana prohibition in CDSA S.7(1) after
the Court closed the file and became functus officio.

55.On the same day, 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.

56. 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

57. On November 14 2005, Appellant Pierre Drouin qualified
for a Health Canada exemption to use 5 grams of marijuana
per day and, pursuant to the Court's ruling, has established
medical need and will simply be exempted. What a waste of
court resources and agony for every busted sick person like
the Appellant who then turns out to have legitimate need.

[continued...

w_b_ryan@yahoo.com · science forum Guru Wannabe Joined: 01 Jan 2006 Posts: 134

"By the way, he thinks he's shaming me while I think
he's helping spread a message many people will
eventually thank me for. I couldn't ask for a better
plug to bring this natural miraculous healer to
everyone's attention, even if from a demented
lunatic. I'm so not ashamed that I even pee a mug
full and chug it in the DVD put out last year at
http://www.turmelmovie.com so it's not as if I'm not
happy to get the message out."
John "Piss Boy" Turmel

aaaaaa · science forum beginner Joined: 09 May 2006 Posts: 1

<w_b_ryan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1145439597.404459.256030@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...

Gill · science forum beginner Joined: 09 May 2006 Posts: 1

aaaaaa aaa@abcd.com.au wrote:

Chip Flintknapper · science forum beginner Joined: 21 May 2006 Posts: 6

aaaaaa wrote:

Google