From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: Last year, 13 of us had filed motions for extensions of    
   time to file appeals once we found out the Smith decision    
   ruled the MMAR defective back to 2001 and the CDSA    
   prohibitions with it. Justice Doherty dismissed the motions    
   and Bela Beke and I appealed. Bela because he is still in the    
   system and me just for me and everyone else.    
      
   File Number:_____   
      
                   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA   
            (ON APPEAL FROM THE ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL)   
   BETWEEN:   
                             Bela Beke    
                                                        Applicant    
                                              Appellant in appeal   
                                and   
                       Her Majesty The Queen   
                                                       Respondent   
                                             Respondent in appeal   
      
      
                         TABLE OF CONTENTS   
      
   1. Notice of Application for Leave to Appeal..............3   
      
   2. Nov 3 2015 Endorsement of Doherty J.A..................6   
      
   3. Apr 6 2016 Endorsement Ontario Court of Appeal.........8   
      
   6. Applicant's Memorandum.................................9   
      
   7. Applicant's Certificate...............................18   
      
      
             NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL   
      
   TAKE NOTICE that Applicant Bela Beke hereby applies for leave    
   to appeal to the Court in forma pauperis pursuant to Section    
   591(1)b of the Criminal Code from the judgment of Justices    
   Feldman, Simmons and Pepall of the Court of Appeal for Ontario    
   M45751 (M45479) made April 6 2016.     
      
   THE GROUNDS are that the invalidation of the prohibitions by    
   an invalid exemption pursuant to R. v. Parker does not apply    
   only to citizens with medical need.    
      
   AND FOR any Order abridging the time for service, filing, or    
   hearing of the application, any Order amending any defect as    
   to form or content of the motion or any Order deemed just.    
      
   Dated at Ottawa on June 1 2016.    
   Applicant: Bela Beke    
      
                       APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM   
      
   PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS   
      
   1. Applicant was convicted on a marijuana charge in 2013, did    
   not appeal and has received extensions of time for the    
   remainder of the $2,000 fine still owing.    
      
   JCT: Mine 1. Applicant was convicted on a marijuana charge in    
   2006, unsuccessfully appealed and unsuccessfully sought leave    
   to appeal to the Supreme Court.    
      
   2. In June 2015, the Supreme Court in Smith v. HMQ struck down    
   the prohibition on any application but dried marijuana as a    
   violation of the Charter.     
      
   3. Just as the Hitzig "Bad Exemption" [2003] by regulated Mis-   
   Supply meant there was "No Offence" in force since Aug 1 2001    
   absent an acceptable medical exemption when J.P. was charged;    
   so too, the Smith Worse "Bad Exemption" [2015] by regulated    
   Mis-Use means there was "No Offence" in force since Aug 1 2001    
   absent an acceptable medical exemption when the Accused herein    
   was charged; this Court is bound by the Ontario Court of    
   Appeal's J.P. precedent to declare that NO OFFENCE was in    
   force while the Smith BAD EXEMPTION existed since Aug. 1 2001,    
   the same as Hitzig, on Terry Parker Day.    
      
   4. Given there was no valid offence when the Accused was    
   charged, Applicant sought an extension of time to appeal the    
   conviction on the new grounds offered in Smith.    
      
   5. On Nov 10, the decision of Court of Appeal Justice Doherty    
   dismissed the application with the endorsement:    
       ENDORSEMENT   
       [1]  The applicant seeks an extension of time to further    
       appeal his conviction. That conviction was already the    
       subject of an appeal to this court (R. v. Turmel, 207 ONCA    
       133). That appeal was dismissed on its merits and leave to    
       appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was refused.   
       [2] Mr. Turmel submits that he is entitled to bring a    
       fresh appeal based on changes in the law effected by case    
       law decided after his appeal was considered and dismissed    
       (R. v. Smith, 2015 SCC). He argues that Smith changes the    
       legal landscape and that on the present state of the law    
       he would be entitled to an acquittal.   
       [3] A party is not entitled to appeal the same conviction    
       more than once. The order dismissing the appeal renders    
       any new appeal res judicata. Counsel may, in limited    
       circumstances, move to reopen a decided appeal:  R. v.    
       Hummel (2003), 175 C.C.C. (3d) 1.    
       Assuming that power exists when the appeal has been    
       dismissed on the merits, it cannot be exercised on the    
       basis of case law decided when the appeal was no longer    
       "in the judicial system": see R. v. Sarson (1996), 107    
       C.C.C. (3d) 20 at 30-31 (SCC).   
       [4]  Finality concerns trump the applicant's claim to re-   
       litigate his appeal based on developments in the case law    
       that postdate the dismissal of his appeal and the refusing    
       of leave to appeal.   
       [5]  The application is dismissed.   
      
   6. Applicant appealed asking for an Order:    
       A) setting aside the Nov 10 decision of Ontario Court of    
       Appeal Justice Doherty and granting an extension of time    
       to file a new Notice of Appeal, or, in the alternative,     
       B) converting the application to extend time to file a new    
       appeal to an application to extend time to reopen a    
       decided appeal.    
      
   JCT: At this point, I wrote:    
      
   7. Applicant argued:     
       [1] Applicant's 2007 Appeal was not dismissed on its    
       merits but for lack of jurisdiction because the Chief    
       Justice had refused the requested 5-judge panel necessary    
       to overrule the Hitzig and J.P. decisions.    
       [2] Applicant cedes the past conviction shouldn't be    
       changed due to the present state of the law; but argues    
       only the retrospective, not present, state of the law when    
       charged.    
       [3] Parties should be permitted to appeal the same    
       conviction a second time in the case where no other    
       charges were available.    
       [4] The Supreme Court wrote in Sarson:    
            [14] The Appellant's continued detention pursuant to    
            a conviction for second degree murder does not amount    
            to a breach of fundamental justice. Although the    
            appellant's conviction was entered under a    
            constitutionally infirm provision of the Code, the    
            circumstances leading to his conviction under that    
            section are important in assessing the propriety of    
            the appellant's conviction and ultimate sentence.    
            [15].. the appellant's involvement in Crispin's death    
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)