From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: April 5 2016 Osgoode Hall Ontario Court of Appeal   
   Madame Justices Feldman, Simmons and Popall presiding:   
      
   Back last year, 13 Applicants had sought extension of   
   time to file appeals against our convictions because of the   
   Smith decision invalidating the MMAR exemption necessary to   
   uphold a valid prohibition. After Justice Doherty dismissed   
   our applications, I and Bela Beke filed appeals against that   
   decision to a 3-judge panel.   
      
   I know I found the rule or section that gave me x days to   
   appeal a 1-judge decision to a 3-judge panel but darned, I   
   can't find it anymore and the judges didn't know if they had   
   jurisdiction.   
      
   I was slated for hearing on Tuesday April 5 in Toronto and   
   Bela was slated for hearing on Wednesday April 6 in   
   Kingston. Despite a letter from the Registry changing a   
   previous date to April 5 in order to have both my and Bela's   
   cases heard by the same panel. So I was surprised when Bela   
   called to say he was booked the next day in Kingston. Find   
   out why later.   
      
   At my hearing, they were all the same objections:   
   1) Sarson says later-struck-law no matter, for murder.   
   2) I had already had an appeal to the top, can't have 2;   
   3) Even if S.4(1) Possession and S.7(1) Production had been   
   struck down by Parker and Krieger, I was charged with S.5(2)   
   Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking that had never   
   been struck down;   
   4) I was out of the system now.   
      
   1) The Sarson case ruled that a guy convicted for murder   
   under a statute that was later declared invalid was still   
   guilty and could not appeal because there were other   
   sections that could have been prosecuted. Of course, if   
   prohibition is declared invalid, there are no other sections   
   that could apply but these are lawyers and judges, no logic   
   from study of Boolean Algebra, think they'd notice the   
   difference? Har har har har har har. Because they could have   
   still gotten him for manslaughter, you can't appeal because   
   we could have gotten you for.... who cares.   
      
   2) Sure, I've tried to erase my conviction on other grounds   
   to the top. Now that new grounds arise, "it's not fair" that   
   I have to keep a bogus criminal record.   
      
   3) Sure, I want to argue that the Smith Bad Exemption also   
   strikes down the S.5(2) P4P if Hitzig was only good enough   
   to strike down Possession and Production and not P4P.   
      
   4) Sure, I might have been out of their system but they   
   could only say "tough," court errors don't get corrected."   
   Well, even if they can't get corrected, they can get   
   embarrassed by us asking to correct their errors and make   
   them explain how court errors can't get corrected. Even   
   though not guilty, you have a record. Court errors can't be   
   corrected.   
      
   Here's is my endorsement:   
       H.M.Q. v. Turmel, John M45751 (m45479) Federal   
       "Mr. Turmel moves to set aside the order of Doherty J.A.   
       declining to permit Mr. Turmel to launch a fresh appeal   
       of a prior conviction for possession of marijuana for   
       the purpose of trafficking.   
       This Court dismissed Mr. Turmel's prior appeal in 2007   
       and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was   
       denied.   
       We are not persuaded that we have any jurisdiction to   
       entertain Mr. Turmel's motion. In any event, we see no   
       error in Doherty J.A.'s reasons.   
       The motion is dismissed.   
       Simmons J.A.   
      
   But what are they going to do with Bela tomorrow in Kingston   
   who is still in the court system until his fine is paid off.   
      
   4) Bela is still in the system.   
      
   3) Bela was convicted of S.4(1) Possession that was struck   
   down in Parker when there's an Absent Exemption.   
      
   2) Bela never appealed before, it's his first.   
      
   1) Unlike Sarson, there is no other law making his act a   
   crime he could have been convicted of.   
      
   So what do you think the Court did the next day?   
      
   First of all, when we got there, the docket said that Madame   
   Justices Feldman, Simmons and Popall presiding. So that's   
   why they moved my date to April 5, so it could be heard by   
   the same panel but not at the same day. As if splitting us   
   was going to make it easier. It could only make it harder.   
      
   But if I got to speak, I'd get shot down summarily (without   
   explanation), they know I'm tough and forget it's the   
   accused taking the beating. So as I've sometimes done in the   
   past when called for, I told Bela he'd have a better chance   
   going in alone. As an ordinary self-defender, they couldn't   
   lay any kind of imperiousness on him. Bela's got brains and   
   balls, saw right away me not being there put him in a better   
   position and went in alone. I went and slept in the car.   
      
   The only thing that comes close was Doug Nielsen going right   
   back into a second court after being laughed out of the   
   first court and getting it heard! Can't help but admire   
   self-confidence like that.   
      
   Seems the Crown hadn't prepared a response and it got put   
   off while they went and dug up his relevant information.   
      
   They again wondered if they had jurisdiction to hear an   
   appeal to set aside Justice Doherty's ruling. Darned, I   
   should have looked it up when I couldn't come up with it the   
   previous day.   
      
   1) Bela doesn't remember them spending any time on Sarson,   
   it was raised but they moved on without Bela having to point   
   out there's no other charge he could have faced.   
      
   2) No problem about Bela having appealed before.   
      
   3) No question Bela's S.4(1) Possession is affected by   
   Absent Exemption even if S.5(2) P4P wasn't for me.   
      
   4) No question he's still in the system when you consider   
   all those other inmates in court that day.   
      
   So what pretext did the Court come up with to deny that   
   Smith was a Bad Exemption to cause No Offence?   
      
   Bela wasn't medically needy! Smith only applied to people   
   with Authorizations to Possess to use derivatives, not   
   everyone. The Bad Exemption did not apply to the non-sick.   
      
   Bela pointed out that the Bad Exemption in Hitzig, grower   
   limits, also didn't apply to non-sick but the Ontario Court   
   of Appeal quashed his charge because   
   of the Bad Exemption that did not apply to J.P.! Har har har   
   har har har. And Justice Simmons was on that panel!   
      
   Think about that. Justice Simmons in 2003 ruled that a Bad   
   Exemption meant No Offence for J.P. without him needing to   
   show medical need but now she rules that a Bad Exemption no   
   longer invalidates the law for Bela without him having to   
   show medical need. What a beautiful contradiction to take to   
   the Supreme Court, especially from the very same judge!   
      
   Don't forget, she was on the Parker-Hitzig-J.P. panel who   
   told Canada that they had resurrected the prohibition when   
   their Hitzig decision had repaired the MMAR. Parliament   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)