Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    can.legal    |    Debating Canuck legal system quirks    |    10,932 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 10,054 of 10,932    |
|    John KingofthePaupers Turmel to All    |
|    TURMEL: Reply to Crown backroom move to     |
|    15 Sep 15 04:56:51    |
      From: johnturmel@yahoo.com              John C. Turmel, B.Eng.,              September 15 2015              Court of Appeal for Ontario Registrar              Dear Registrar:              Re: M45479 - John Turmel - Application to open new appeal              Rather than serve a Motion Record in Response, the Crown has       chosen to send a letter asking the Registrar to ask a judge       to dismiss the motion without a hearing on grounds it is       "truly frivolous and vexatious."              James Turner raised the new Smith BENO argument in his       motion to Quash his charge on Aug 4 2015. It was adjourned.       On Aug 10, the Crown got it adjourned. On Aug 17, the Crown       got it adjourned. On Aug 31, again unprepared, Crown Steven       White got it adjourned again.              Mr. White had 4 opportunities to ask a judge in open court       to have it dismissed as frivolous and vexatious and could       not. The Crown now takes the opportunity to ask for a       backroom ruling without a hearing or chance for my Reply       that worked so well against Mr. Turner. Ever heard of a       hearing before a "temporary Trial Judge" before the real       Trial Judge gets appointed? Mr. White gave Turner one.              Crown White mentions "this Court has repeatedly rejected the       type of argument Mr. Turmel again advances, coloquially       referred to as "Bad Exemption = No Offence" or "BENO" see:       R. v. McCrady et al, [2001] O.J. No. 5 935 (C.A.).              This is a different "type of BENO argument" with the Smith       Bad Exemption rather than the Hitzig Bad Exemption. It may       be the same artillery but it's new ammunition.              Mr. White opinion is that "the Supreme Court of Canada case       of R. v. Smith does not assist Mr. Turmel in any manner."       I need to hear that from a judge.              As to my opening a new appeal, not re-opening my old appeal,       there are other Appellants who do not have previous appeals       to which such argument do not apply.       _______________________________       John Turmel              Fax Cc: Steven White: 613-957-9043              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca