From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: Justice LaForme presiding on the Ontario Court of   
   Appeal Power Play of 13 Appellants; Nick Devlin for the   
   Crown. He didn't recognize me from before but I reminded him   
   I was with Sean Maloney, the kid he let out of jail without   
   bail, maybe a first.   
      
   All 13 Appellants got in:   
   M45479 R. v. Turmel, John   
   M45528 R. v. Kenny, Carolyn   
   M45529 R. v. McCrady, Robert   
   M45531 R. v. Spottiswood, Michael   
   M45532 R. v. Beke, Bela   
   M45533 R. v. Nielsen, Doug   
   M45541 R. v. Martin, Real   
   M45543 R. v. Boudreault, Bernard   
   M45544 R. v. Tremblay, Denis   
   M45545 R. v. Tinney, James K.   
   M45546 R. v. Misener, Robert   
   M45547 R. v. Drouin, Pierre   
   M45548 R. v. Dickinson, Joseph Robert   
      
   JCT: What happened from my taped notes:   
      
   CR: The Crown has written to the Court respective the   
   original application.   
      
   J: Yes, I saw it in the file.   
      
   CR: By way of context, Mr. Turmel seeks to appeal, to do   
   something in respect of a case that's already been heard by   
   this court and has obviously been dismissed. That's the   
   background.   
      
   J: Okay, I don't know that.   
      
   CR: We can discern almost nothing from the materials that   
   have been filed in these cases which is part of the   
   difficulty. As far I can tell, all these have had   
   convictions in respect to marijuana at some unclear point in   
   the past. By my count, there are six who have had appeals in   
   this Court ranging from 2006 to 2011.   
      
   J: Okay, Mr. Turmel, Mr. Devlin has just indicated what I   
   think is a big problem with what we've got here. We're   
   missing a bunch of stuff.   
      
   T: Perhaps or perhaps not, It depends on how much stuff you   
   need. This is an argument on pure law.   
      
   J: That's not up to me to decide. You're the one that wants   
   the appeal, that's required to tell me a) what you are   
   appealing from? b) did you have a prior appeal? did some of   
   them have a prior appeal, it sounds to me like there's two   
   kinds of potential appeals in this. One, that have already   
   had their appeals by this court in which case they want back   
   in to the system.   
      
   T: No. They want new ones.   
      
   J: That's what I mean. The fact that they're finished,   
      
   T: Yes, the old ones.   
      
   J: And so they want to get back in and have that appeal   
   heard all over again.   
      
   T: Yes, with new grounds.   
      
   J: On new grounds. And then there are some that have never   
   appealed their convictions which begs the question of   
   convictions for what. I don't know that...   
      
   T: They're all for marijuana-related.   
      
   J: I don't know that, that's the material missing from this   
   record which doesn't permit me to make a decision.   
      
   T: It goes into the Notice of Appeal what the actual   
   sections were but this has got, honestly, nothing to do with   
   the individual people involved. It is a question of pure law   
   employing the Supreme Court of Canada's recent decision that   
   came down; using the Ontario Court of Appeal decisions..   
      
   J: I understand what it is you are trying to do but you   
   haven't given the court enough information to assess whether   
   we should do that.   
      
   T: I believe I have because you don't need my personal   
   information to know whether the argument I'm making is..   
      
   J: Where in the Application does it tell me you were   
   convicted of anything?   
      
   T: "for extension of time to appeal Applicant's conviction   
   on marijuana charges." The point is only this, I'm claiming   
   a broad general amnesty, not amnesty, an error in the law as   
   big as the Hitzig and J.P. decisions of the past where they   
   dropped 4,000 charges. The last time, the McCrady decision   
   talked about the BENO period, and why they dropped the first   
   4,000 charges. We're saying a new BENO period has arisen   
   that affects me and everybody else.   
      
   J: I get that.   
      
   T: So I understand how, on the old grounds, my old appeal is   
   functus officio, and that's why I'm asking, with the people   
   who have never appealed before...   
      
   J: The Court has to abide by the law and the rules that are   
   required in order to grant relief that you are seeking. We   
   have to know what the conviction was, when it was, whether   
   there has been an appeal, how long the delay is, the reasons   
   why there was a delay for those that didn't appeal..   
      
   T: But that is all relevant to the appeal when we get the   
   extension.   
      
   J: No it's not, it's relevant to whether or not you actually   
   get the extension. It's a test we have to apply.   
      
   T: The only thing missing from mine is the date of the   
   charge, all the stuff that would be in the Notice of Appeal.   
   And I'm saying there's nothing related in this application   
   that has any bearing on me personally other than the fact   
   the law was dead when I was charged. So I'd like to at least   
   make the argument for the people who don't have that   
   impediment of a previous appeal.   
      
   J: I know what you're trying to do.   
      
   T: So can I make the argument for the ones who are freshly   
   asking for an extension of time to file an appeal against   
   their recent conviction?   
      
   J: All right but I'm saying that I don't have enough   
   information, I don't have a proper record to make that   
   decision.   
      
   T: I could go back and just file the prospective Notice of   
   Appeal with that information,   
      
   J: You'd be in the same boat. What we need are affidavits.   
      
   T: Fine, I'll give you an Affidavit that I was convicted on   
   this date, we can all do that again, but the point is it's a   
   question of law which relates to none of this information.   
      
   J: I know that, but we have rules we have to follow. We   
   can't here and listen to submissions and say: okay well we   
   can ignore the law then, you should have a right to go,   
   though...   
      
   T: Well, I don't see where it says that for an extension of   
   time to file a notice of appeal we have to file that   
   information.   
      
   J: You've been in court long enough to know we have rules we   
   have to follow for an extension of time.   
      
   T: Yes, but I asked to dispense with the Affidavit. I asked   
   for an Order dispensing with the Affidavit and transcript   
   because they're irrelevant to this question of pure law.   
      
   J: No they're not. They're not. When a person comes in and   
   wants to appeal, there better be something to appeal from.   
   There'd better be a charge, a conviction and we need to know   
   what that conviction was. Everybody that's been charged,   
   there are all kinds of marijuana defences other than what   
   you're concerned with.   
      
   T: No, if the law.. they didn't check out 4,000 people to   
   see which ones they were going to drop the charges against   
   last time around and when a judge makes a declaration there   
   was as Bad Exemption and No Offence again because of Smith,   
   they're not going to check the 4,000 they're going to drop   
   again.. So, for the people, we can all go back and file the   
   affidavit you need..   
      
   J: I'll hear from Mr. Devlin.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)