FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Engineering
TURMEL: Crown case in Parker Supreme Court challenge
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [2 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
w_b_ryan@yahoo.com
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 01 Jan 2006
Posts: 134

PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 12:57 pm    Post subject: John Turmel drinks his own piss. Reply with quote

"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
Back to top
John Turmel
science forum Guru


Joined: 07 May 2005
Posts: 424

PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 6:47 pm    Post subject: TURMEL: Crown case in Parker Supreme Court challenge Reply with quote

JCT: We're all so busy watching Parker fight to get his
seized marijuana back after a Canada Post search of his mail
that many people forgot that Parker's our last challenge to
the Hitzig resurrection at the Supreme Court of Canada too.
Boy, are they beating on the wrong guy.

Parker is poor enough to qualify for leave to appeal in
"forma pauperis" in which case, section 59(4) says he is
exempt from the filing deadlines in section 58 that "not-
pauper-enough" richer applicants have to meet.

The Registrar simply told him he wanted him to get an Order
extending the time to appeal like all non-paupers have to
without ever explaining why "forma pauperis" status did not
belong to Parker. So the Registrar dismissed Canada most
important medpot case as abandoned for lack of usual Order
extending the time.

Pursuant to Rule 73, Parker filed for reconsideration of the
Registrar's decision denying him his Pauper Status and if
so, requests an extension of time to file Canada's most
important medical marijuana case.

To read this without JCT: commentary, it's at
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/MedPot-discuss/files/tpdrcm.txt

File Number: #31245
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
(ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO)
BETWEEN
Terrance Parker
Applicant
Moving Party (Appellant)
AND
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Responding Party (Respondent)

MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENT IN RESPONSE
TO THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(Rules 6, 73 and 78 of the Supreme Court of Canada Rules)

PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS

CR: A. OVERVIEW

1. This motion arises from an application for leave to
appeal (the Application) which was dismissed by the
Registrar because, despite the fact that the application was
filed more than two years beyond the deadline for doing so,
the Applicant failed to file any material in support of an
extension of time.

JCT: Claiming his status as a pauper under Section 59(4)
exempted him from the deadline in Section 58 of the Act.

CR: In the absence of such material, the Application was
incomplete.

JCT: If the claim to pauper's status was wrong.

CR: The Registrar advised the Applicant of the deficiency
but the Applicant refused to file the necessary materials.

JCT: Refused by claiming pauper's exemption status.

CR: After three months, the Registrar issued an Order
dismissing the Application as abandoned.

JCT: Without ever explaining why Applicant's claim to pauper
status did not apply.

CR: The Applicant now seeks reconsideration of the Order of
the Registrar.
2. There are absolutely no grounds for disturbing the Order
of the Registrar. The Applicant has provided no explanation
for his failure to file his application for leave to appeal
in a timely manner,

JCT: Yes, he explained another co-appellant had sought leave
to appeal, Turmel, land he didn't want to duplicate the
effort.

CR: or for his repeated failure to file the materials
required under the Rules.

JCT: Not required with forma pauperis status.

CR: This motion is wholly without merit and should be
dismissed.

JCT: So far, other than stating Applicant has no status to
be exempt from section 58, no one has yet broached why
section 59(4) does not apply.

CR: B. FACTS

3. The decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario which
gave rise to the application was issued on October 7 2003.2

4. The time period within which to seek leave to appeal from
that decision expired on December 8, 2003.

JCT: I also echo but for S.59 exceptions in forma pauperis.

CR: 5. The Applicant served and filed his application for
leave to appeal to this Honorable Court on December 15 2005,
more than two years beyond the expiry of the time period for
doing so.

JCT: If the Crown repeats, I repeat it's because...

CR: The material filed in support of his Application
did not include any attempt to explain the reason for such a
significant delay in seeking leave to appeal to this
Honorable Court.

JCT: The echo says someone else was doing it so there was no
need to until the most important medpot challenge was
dismissed without adjudication. Then he had to take over.

CR: 6. On December 22, 2005, the Registrar of this Honorable
Court advised the Applicant in writing that the Application
would not be considered complete unless he filed a motion
for an extension of time to serve and file the Application.

JCT: Why? because Applicant claimed section 59(4) exemption.


7. After three months had passed, and the Application
remained incomplete, the Registrar gave notice to the
Applicant pursuant to Rule 64 advising that the Application
was incomplete and would be dismissed as abandoned.

JCT: For non paupers, yes, for paupers, maybe no? Now we
find out why.


CR: The only means to avoid dismissal, according to the
Notice, was for the Applicant to obtain an order by a judge
of the Court extending the time for filing the necessary
material. No such Order was obtained.

JCT: Unless Applicant didn't need to comply with s.58.



CR: 8. On April 6, 2006, the Registrar dismissed the
Application as abandoned.

9. The Applicant filed the motion herein on May 8 2006
seeking reconsideration of the Order of the Registrar.

JCT: Since it had the same effect as dismissal by the court.

CR: As relief, the Applicant requests an Order
a) declaring that pursuant to section 59(4) of the Act,
Section 58 time deadlines do not apply to applications for
leave to appeal in forma pauperis; or
b) granting an extension of time to file the application for
leave to appeal if section 59(4) does not apply.

PART II - QUESTIONS IN ISSUE

10. The Respondent submits two issues arise on this motion:

(a) Has the Applicant brought this motion within the 20-day
time limit set by Rule 78(1)? and if so,

JCT: Applicant used the Rule 73 challenge, though a judge
always has the power to change it to a Rule 78(1) challenge.


(b) Has the Applicant identified any reason for disturbing
the Order of the Registrar?

JCT: With 4,000 bogus marijuana possession charges were dropped
due to Applicant's Appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal,
getting past the tip of the iceberg to correcting the other
quarter million bogus convictions remains to be done. The
Crown has not contradicted the national importance of this
challenge to a case which was cited as precedent in the 2005
Martin's Criminal Code of Canada!

CR: PART III - ARGUMENT

A. THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO BRING THIS MOTION WITHIN THE
20-DAY TIME LIMIT SET BY RULE 78(1)

JCT: Echoing we're going with s.73 but don't care if the
judge changes the mode to 78(1).

CR: 11. The decision which the Applicant seeks to review is
an order of the Registrar dismissing the Application as
abandoned. Therefore, despite the Applicant's attempts to
characterize the motion herein as a "motion for
reconsideration" pursuant to Rule 73, it is in fact for
review of an order of the Registrar pursuant to Rule 78.

JCT: And the most important case in Canadian history was
filed before 30 days, not 20 days?

CR: 12. Rule 78(1) of the rules of this Honourable Court
state that a motion for review of an order of the Registrar
must be filed within 20 days after the Registrar makes the
order.

JCT: That's the Crown's power point.

CR: 13. The Registrar made the Order on April 6 2006.
Therefore, the deadline for filing the motion herein was
April 6 2006. However, the Applicant did not file the motion
until May 8 2006. Furthermore, the Applicant has made no
attempt to obtain leave of this Honourable Court to file his
motion beyond the deadline set out in the Rules.

B. THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO IDENTIFY ANY REASON FOR
DISTURBING THE ORDER OF THE REGISTRAR

14. In the event that this Honourable Court should find that
the motion was not filed out of time,

JCT: Why would that be? Oh right, he's claiming an exemption
from Section 58 from somewhere.

CR: the motion should nonetheless be dismissed on the ground
that the Applicant has failed to identify a single valid
reason for disturbing the Registrar's Order.

JCT: The challenge to the most important precedent in
Canadian history is ready to go and should be heard.
National importance matters. The Crown cannot dispute the
importance of the precedent that is being challenged.

CR: 15. The only reason offered by the Applicant to justify
the review of the Order is based on a fundamental
misinterpretation of a provision of the Supreme Court of
Canada Act.

16. The Applicant does not dispute that the Application was
served and filed two years beyond the 60-day deadline
prescribed by section 58 of the Act.

JCT: So Section 58 says "applications for leave to appeal"
have to be filed within 60 days. Section 58 deals with
deadlines for filing applications for leave to appeal.
Nothing else.

CR: Rather, he argues that the 60-day deadline set out in
section 58 for filing an application does not apply to him
by virtue of the fact that he is seeking leave in "forma
pauperis." In support of his argument, the Applicant cites
section 59(4) of the Act which reads:

"Appeals in forma pauperis
59(4) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, a judge may, on
an application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, allow
an appeal by giving the applicant leave to serve notice of
appeal although the time prescribed by section 58 has
expired."

17. The clear and ordinary meaning of the words in section
59(4) of the Act cannot support the meaning ascribed to them
by the Applicant. Section 59(4) provides for the granting of
leave to serve a "notice of appeal" after the deadline for
doing so,

JCT: Where do they talk about a deadline for a notice of
appeal in s.58? They talk about a deadline for an
application for leave to appeal.

"58. (1) Subject to this Act or any other Act of Parliament,
the following provisions with respect to time periods apply
to proceedings in appeals:
(a) in the case of an appeal for which leave to appeal is
required, the notice of application for leave to appeal and
all materials necessary for the application shall be served
on all other parties to the case and filed with the
Registrar of the Court within sixty days after the date of
the judgment appealed from"

Notice there is no deadline in section 58 for anything but
the application for leave to appeal. So again, the Crown
says "Section 59(4) provides for the granting of leave to
serve a "notice of appeal" after the deadline for doing so,"
but there is no such deadline in s.58 for s.59(4) to apply
to. s.59(4) only applies to the 60-day deadline for
applications for leave to appeal.

CR: where the applicant has been granted leave to proceed in
forma pauperis.

JCT: After being granted leave to appeal, why would anyone
need s.59(4) to deal with the 60-day deadline in s.58? Har
har har har.

CR: Section 59(4) does not relieve all applicants proceeding
in forma pauperis from the requirement to justify an
extension of the 60-day deadline for service of the
application for leave to appeal.
a
JCT: Just drop the "not" to get: "Section 59(4) does relieve
all applicants proceeding in forma pauperis from the
requirement to justify an extension of the 60-day deadline
for service of the application for leave to appeal." Does
not." Does too." "Does not." "Does too." "Not." "Does too."

CR: In that sense, section 59(4) of the Act does not assist
the Applicant in this matter.

JCT: In the sense that you add a "not" to the meaning, it
does "not" assist. Drop the "not" and it does.

CR: 18. The Registrar's conclusion that the application was
not complete without a motion for an extension of time was
correct.

JCT: Because the Crown says "not" with the Registrar.

CR: The Applicant has offered no valid reason to disturb the
Order of the Registrar dismissing the Application as
abandoned.

JCT: Most nationally important case in Canadian history is a
pretty valid reason.

CR: 19. As alternative relief, the Applicant asks this
Honourable court for an extension of time to file the
Application.

JCT: If a judge says that Applicant does not have pauper's
status to have the most important case in Canadian history
adjudicated without an extension of time, then grant the
extension of time adjudicate the most important case in
Canadian history.

CR: However, in the absence of any valid reason for varying
the Order of the Registrar, that Order stands and the
Application is dismissed. Therefore, the alternative relief
sought by the Applicant is simply not available. Even if
such alternative relief were available in this case, the
Applicant has offered absolutely no justification for the
two-year delay in filing the Application.

JCT: Also repeating that someone else was raising the most
important challenge at the time but never got it adjudicated
so Parker's coming up the rear.

CR: C. CONCLUSION

20. The motion now before this Honourable Court is entirely
without merit and should be dismissed.

JCT: It's the most important case in our history and should
be treated accordingly.

CR: PART IV - SUBMISSIONS CONCERNING COSTS

21. The Respondent does not seek costs in this motion.

JCT: Pauper's pay less court costs too! They wouldn't get
very much.

CR: PART V - ORDER SOUGHT

22. The Respondent respectfully requests that the within
motion be dismissed.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Dated at Toronto this 6th day of June 2006.
James Gorham
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Department of Justice,
3400 - 130 King St. W., Box 36
Toronto Ontario M5X 1K6
Tel: 416-954-2929
Fax: 416-952-0298
Email: james.gorham@justice.gc.ca
Of Counsel for the Respondent

JCT: I guess the funniest limb the Crown found himself
hanging from was that s.58 contained some other deadline
than for applications for leave to appeal. Har har har har.
I'll have to prepare a quick Reply for Terry to file. What
fun to beat up on Government lawyers.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [2 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:54 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Engineering
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts TURMEL: Int'l Social Currency Conference in Germany Septe... John Turmel Engineering 1 Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:33 pm
No new posts TURMEL: British Legion to organize Timebanks!!! John Turmel Engineering 1 Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:31 pm
No new posts TURMEL: Parker's Canada Post Pot seizure Pre-trial John Turmel Engineering 1 Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:18 am
No new posts TURMEL: Virginia Livingston M.D. Cancer Quack or Genius? John Turmel Engineering 1 Sun Jul 16, 2006 12:51 pm
No new posts TURMEL: Parker Crown ducks exam he said was needed John Turmel Engineering 1 Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:07 am

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0711s ][ Queries: 20 (0.0514s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]