home bbs files messages ]

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