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: MedPot Parker's Reply to Supreme Court abandonment
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: Thu Jun 15, 2006 1:49 am    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: Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:00 pm    Post subject: TURMEL: MedPot Parker's Reply to Supreme Court abandonment Reply with quote

JCT: So now we find out if the most important case
in the Criminal Code will a hearing at the Supreme Court or
of it will be declared abandoned without a hearing.

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

APPLICANT'S REPLY FOR RECONSIDERATION
TERRANCE PARKER, APPLICANT
(Pursuant to S.73 or S.78 of the Supreme Court Rules)

1. Applicant applied for leave to appeal pursuant to Section
59(4) of the Supreme Court of Canada Act which exempts
applications for leave to appeal in forma pauperis from the
60-day deadline set out in Section 58.

2. The Registrar refused to acknowledge Applicant's status
in forma pauperis and insisted Applicant abide by the 60-day
deadline set out in S.58 by seeking an Order extending the
time.

3. Applicant pointed out S.59(4) exempted applications in
forma pauperis from the S.58 deadline but the Registrar
dismissed the application as abandoned for want of an Order
extending the time.

4. Applicant seeks to review the Order of the Registrar
denying Applicant's claim to pauper status and,if the Court
finds Applicant does not have pauper's status, to obtain an
Order extending the time to file.

5. The Crown argues that Applicant should have applied to
review the ruling of the Registrar pursuant to Rule 78(1)
within 20 days. Should the court accept that the refusal of
forma pauperis status by the Registrar must be reviewed
pursuant to Rule 78(1) within 20 days rather than a review
of the abandonment Order pursuant to Rule 73 within 30 days,
Applicant would seek an extension of time to reconsider the
Registrar's Order pursuant to Rule 78.

6. The Crown argues that Section 59(4) provides for the
granting of leave to serve a "notice of appeal" after the
deadline in Section 58 for doing so but fails to notice that
the only deadline cited in S.58 is for applications for
leave to appeal and no deadlines for anything else.

7. The Crown argues Applicant has not identified any reason
for disturbing the Order of the Registrar. The Parker and
Turmel-Paquette appeals initiated the proceedings resulting
in the decision named after the Hitzig Cross-appellants in
which the Court ruled that the MMAR (Marijuana Medical
Access Regulations) issued in 2001 had failed to comply with
the R. v. Parker [2000] ruling resulting in the taking
effect of their declaring "the prohibition in s.4(1) to be
invalid."

8. The Hitzig court then ruled they had fixed the flaws in
the MMAR to purportedly make the prohibition valid again.

9. The Crown has not disputed that this is a case of
national importance since it was immediately cited in the
Martin's Criminal Code of Canada.
Dated at Toronto on July 14 2006.
___________________________
Applicant to the motion
Terrance Parker
2209-55 Triller Ave. Toronto, Ontario, M6R-2H6
Tel/fax: 613.632.2334 Email: terryparkerjr@sympatico.ca

JCT: So now we sit back and see if the most important case
in the Criminal Code gets its hearing at the Supreme Court
or of it loses without a hearing.

Notice that by going this route, he finds out whether he
qualifies to be exempt from needing an extension of time
before he applies for it. I applied for it before
ascertaining I was not exempt. So, by doing it this way,
Parker gets both chances. If he's exempt as a pauper, he's
in, and if he's not, he asks like non-paupers.

Regardless, this case setting precedent in the Criminal Code
indicates its national importance.
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 12:54 pm | 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: 0.0185s ][ Queries: 20 (0.0040s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]